On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:53:11 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> https://www.lppfusion.com/science/cosmic-connection/plasma-cosmology/
>
> EXCERPT
>
> In May, 2014, Lerner and colleagues Renato Falomo and Riccardo Scarpa published new evidence indicating that the universe is not in fact expanding. “Questions and Answers on The Science of Surface Brightness” gives more technical details on this study. Here are biographical sketches of the research team members, and background on “The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory”.
>
> Lerner elaborated this research in a 2018 paper published in the leading journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. The new study, titled “Observations contradict galaxy size and surface brightness predictions that are based on the expanding universe hypothesis”, finds that none of the published expanding-universe predictions of galaxy-size growth fit the actual data. All of the proposed physical mechanisms for galaxy growth, such as galaxy mergers, also contradict observations. However, the paper finds that the data are closely fit by the contrary hypothesis that the universe is not expanding, and that the redshift of light is caused by some other, currently unknown, process.
>
> In 2020, Lerner presented to the American Astronomical Society meeting a new study showing that bedrock predictions of the Big Bang are contradicted by observations. The study looks at the origin and abundance of three key light elements that are hypothesized to have been created by the Big Bang. Precise amounts of helium, deuterium and lithium are predicted to have been formed by fusion reactions in the dense, extremely hot initial instants of the Big Bang.
>
> For both lithium and helium, the study shows, observations of abundances in old stars now differ from predictions by more than a dozen standard deviations and the gap has been widening at an accelerating pace. The oldest stars have less than half the helium and less than one tenth the lithium than that predicted by Big Bang Nucleosynthesis theory. The lowest lithium levels observed are less than 1% that predicted by the theory. Indeed, the evidence is consistent with no helium or lithium having been formed before the first stars in our galaxy.
> --------------------------------------------
>
> Summary: All pseudo-theories based on the BBT and Hubble's red shifting
> fail to explain stellar and galactic composition. Negationism about the role
> of electrical currents and huge magnetic phenomena at galactic level force
> the invention of "dark matter and energy" to adapt 1915 GR to the failed
> interpretation of galaxy rotation curves.
>
> Current establishment backed theories can't explain the existence of quasars
> or the "calculated" existence of less than 6% of baryonic matter in the
> composition of the universe.
>
> Plasma cosmology has been applied to simulations in supercomputers
> without the need of inventions like dark matter/energy filling the remaining
> 95% structure of the "expanding universe" and the failed theories of
> galaxies rotation.
>
> BBT and GR are just infantile fairy tales.
Instead of postulating a dark matter halo to account for the galactic rotation curve, it is better to suppose that mass is in the stars, so they have underestimated the mass of stars. Rather than stars pinging out of the galaxy, they are more likely orbiting larger masses within the galaxy. Look at our Sun's orbit around the galaxy. It is also supposed to be moving up and down and in and out at a 60 myr periodicity. This should require another center of mass capable of holding the Sun in its orbit.

On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 8:53:44 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:53:11 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > https://www.lppfusion.com/science/cosmic-connection/plasma-cosmology/
> >
> > EXCERPT
> >
> > In May, 2014, Lerner and colleagues Renato Falomo and Riccardo Scarpa published new evidence indicating that the universe is not in fact expanding.. “Questions and Answers on The Science of Surface Brightness” gives more technical details on this study. Here are biographical sketches of the research team members, and background on “The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory”.
> >
> > Lerner elaborated this research in a 2018 paper published in the leading journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. The new study, titled “Observations contradict galaxy size and surface brightness predictions that are based on the expanding universe hypothesis”, finds that none of the published expanding-universe predictions of galaxy-size growth fit the actual data. All of the proposed physical mechanisms for galaxy growth, such as galaxy mergers, also contradict observations. However, the paper finds that the data are closely fit by the contrary hypothesis that the universe is not expanding, and that the redshift of light is caused by some other, currently unknown, process.
> >
> > In 2020, Lerner presented to the American Astronomical Society meeting a new study showing that bedrock predictions of the Big Bang are contradicted by observations. The study looks at the origin and abundance of three key light elements that are hypothesized to have been created by the Big Bang.. Precise amounts of helium, deuterium and lithium are predicted to have been formed by fusion reactions in the dense, extremely hot initial instants of the Big Bang.
> >
> > For both lithium and helium, the study shows, observations of abundances in old stars now differ from predictions by more than a dozen standard deviations and the gap has been widening at an accelerating pace. The oldest stars have less than half the helium and less than one tenth the lithium than that predicted by Big Bang Nucleosynthesis theory. The lowest lithium levels observed are less than 1% that predicted by the theory. Indeed, the evidence is consistent with no helium or lithium having been formed before the first stars in our galaxy.
> > --------------------------------------------
> >
> > Summary: All pseudo-theories based on the BBT and Hubble's red shifting
> > fail to explain stellar and galactic composition. Negationism about the role
> > of electrical currents and huge magnetic phenomena at galactic level force
> > the invention of "dark matter and energy" to adapt 1915 GR to the failed
> > interpretation of galaxy rotation curves.
> >
> > Current establishment backed theories can't explain the existence of quasars
> > or the "calculated" existence of less than 6% of baryonic matter in the
> > composition of the universe.
> >
> > Plasma cosmology has been applied to simulations in supercomputers
> > without the need of inventions like dark matter/energy filling the remaining
> > 95% structure of the "expanding universe" and the failed theories of
> > galaxies rotation.
> >
> > BBT and GR are just infantile fairy tales.

Only in your dreams. Evidence rules, Got any?

> Instead of postulating a dark matter halo to account for the galactic rotation curve, it is better to suppose that mass is in the stars, so they have underestimated the mass of stars. Rather than stars pinging out of the galaxy, they are more likely orbiting larger masses within the galaxy. Look at our Sun's orbit around the galaxy. It is also supposed to be moving up and down and in and out at a 60 myr periodicity. This should require another center of mass capable of holding the Sun in its orbit.

Once again you are revealing you ignorance of the subject matter. The oscillations of the Sun going above and below the galactic plane are well understood and well documented. Of course, had you read the dang textbook you would already know all of this! The orbit of the Sun is simply inclined to the plan of the galaxy, no spooky forces are required. Just a proper education in astronomy, of which you are sorely lacking.

The masses of most stars are equally well understood, so your claim that they are universally underestimated goes directly out of the window. You can make it up as you go along but that does not mean that you are even remotely correct.

On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 9:42:39 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 8:53:44 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:53:11 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > https://www.lppfusion.com/science/cosmic-connection/plasma-cosmology/
> > >
> > > EXCERPT
> > >
> > > In May, 2014, Lerner and colleagues Renato Falomo and Riccardo Scarpa published new evidence indicating that the universe is not in fact expanding. “Questions and Answers on The Science of Surface Brightness” gives more technical details on this study. Here are biographical sketches of the research team members, and background on “The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory”.
> > >
> > > Lerner elaborated this research in a 2018 paper published in the leading journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. The new study, titled “Observations contradict galaxy size and surface brightness predictions that are based on the expanding universe hypothesis”, finds that none of the published expanding-universe predictions of galaxy-size growth fit the actual data. All of the proposed physical mechanisms for galaxy growth, such as galaxy mergers, also contradict observations. However, the paper finds that the data are closely fit by the contrary hypothesis that the universe is not expanding, and that the redshift of light is caused by some other, currently unknown, process.
> > >
> > > In 2020, Lerner presented to the American Astronomical Society meeting a new study showing that bedrock predictions of the Big Bang are contradicted by observations. The study looks at the origin and abundance of three key light elements that are hypothesized to have been created by the Big Bang. Precise amounts of helium, deuterium and lithium are predicted to have been formed by fusion reactions in the dense, extremely hot initial instants of the Big Bang.
> > >
> > > For both lithium and helium, the study shows, observations of abundances in old stars now differ from predictions by more than a dozen standard deviations and the gap has been widening at an accelerating pace. The oldest stars have less than half the helium and less than one tenth the lithium than that predicted by Big Bang Nucleosynthesis theory. The lowest lithium levels observed are less than 1% that predicted by the theory. Indeed, the evidence is consistent with no helium or lithium having been formed before the first stars in our galaxy.
> > > --------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Summary: All pseudo-theories based on the BBT and Hubble's red shifting
> > > fail to explain stellar and galactic composition. Negationism about the role
> > > of electrical currents and huge magnetic phenomena at galactic level force
> > > the invention of "dark matter and energy" to adapt 1915 GR to the failed
> > > interpretation of galaxy rotation curves.
> > >
> > > Current establishment backed theories can't explain the existence of quasars
> > > or the "calculated" existence of less than 6% of baryonic matter in the
> > > composition of the universe.
> > >
> > > Plasma cosmology has been applied to simulations in supercomputers
> > > without the need of inventions like dark matter/energy filling the remaining
> > > 95% structure of the "expanding universe" and the failed theories of
> > > galaxies rotation.
> > >
> > > BBT and GR are just infantile fairy tales.
> Only in your dreams. Evidence rules, Got any?
> > Instead of postulating a dark matter halo to account for the galactic rotation curve, it is better to suppose that mass is in the stars, so they have underestimated the mass of stars. Rather than stars pinging out of the galaxy, they are more likely orbiting larger masses within the galaxy. Look at our Sun's orbit around the galaxy. It is also supposed to be moving up and down and in and out at a 60 myr periodicity. This should require another center of mass capable of holding the Sun in its orbit.
> Once again you are revealing you ignorance of the subject matter. The oscillations of the Sun going above and below the galactic plane are well understood and well documented. Of course, had you read the dang textbook you would already know all of this! The orbit of the Sun is simply inclined to the plan of the galaxy, no spooky forces are required. Just a proper education in astronomy, of which you are sorely lacking.
>
> The masses of most stars are equally well understood, so your claim that they are universally underestimated goes directly out of the window. You can make it up as you go along but that does not mean that you are even remotely correct.
The textbooks are very ignorant and stupid. They lied to you and told you an infinite universe has centers everywhere.

On Tuesday, 28 November 2023 at 06:42:39 UTC+1, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 8:53:44 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:53:11 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > https://www.lppfusion.com/science/cosmic-connection/plasma-cosmology/
> > >
> > > EXCERPT
> > >
> > > In May, 2014, Lerner and colleagues Renato Falomo and Riccardo Scarpa published new evidence indicating that the universe is not in fact expanding. “Questions and Answers on The Science of Surface Brightness” gives more technical details on this study. Here are biographical sketches of the research team members, and background on “The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory”.
> > >
> > > Lerner elaborated this research in a 2018 paper published in the leading journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. The new study, titled “Observations contradict galaxy size and surface brightness predictions that are based on the expanding universe hypothesis”, finds that none of the published expanding-universe predictions of galaxy-size growth fit the actual data. All of the proposed physical mechanisms for galaxy growth, such as galaxy mergers, also contradict observations. However, the paper finds that the data are closely fit by the contrary hypothesis that the universe is not expanding, and that the redshift of light is caused by some other, currently unknown, process.
> > >
> > > In 2020, Lerner presented to the American Astronomical Society meeting a new study showing that bedrock predictions of the Big Bang are contradicted by observations. The study looks at the origin and abundance of three key light elements that are hypothesized to have been created by the Big Bang. Precise amounts of helium, deuterium and lithium are predicted to have been formed by fusion reactions in the dense, extremely hot initial instants of the Big Bang.
> > >
> > > For both lithium and helium, the study shows, observations of abundances in old stars now differ from predictions by more than a dozen standard deviations and the gap has been widening at an accelerating pace. The oldest stars have less than half the helium and less than one tenth the lithium than that predicted by Big Bang Nucleosynthesis theory. The lowest lithium levels observed are less than 1% that predicted by the theory. Indeed, the evidence is consistent with no helium or lithium having been formed before the first stars in our galaxy.
> > > --------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Summary: All pseudo-theories based on the BBT and Hubble's red shifting
> > > fail to explain stellar and galactic composition. Negationism about the role
> > > of electrical currents and huge magnetic phenomena at galactic level force
> > > the invention of "dark matter and energy" to adapt 1915 GR to the failed
> > > interpretation of galaxy rotation curves.
> > >
> > > Current establishment backed theories can't explain the existence of quasars
> > > or the "calculated" existence of less than 6% of baryonic matter in the
> > > composition of the universe.
> > >
> > > Plasma cosmology has been applied to simulations in supercomputers
> > > without the need of inventions like dark matter/energy filling the remaining
> > > 95% structure of the "expanding universe" and the failed theories of
> > > galaxies rotation.
> > >
> > > BBT and GR are just infantile fairy tales.
> Only in your dreams. Evidence rules, Got any?

Al, poor halfbrain, come on. The mumble of your
idiot guru was not even consistent, and the
evidence is only making you barking more
fiercely.

On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 9:48:47 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 9:42:39 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 8:53:44 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:53:11 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > > https://www.lppfusion.com/science/cosmic-connection/plasma-cosmology/
> > > >
> > > > EXCERPT
> > > >
> > > > In May, 2014, Lerner and colleagues Renato Falomo and Riccardo Scarpa published new evidence indicating that the universe is not in fact expanding. “Questions and Answers on The Science of Surface Brightness” gives more technical details on this study. Here are biographical sketches of the research team members, and background on “The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory”.
> > > >
> > > > Lerner elaborated this research in a 2018 paper published in the leading journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. The new study, titled “Observations contradict galaxy size and surface brightness predictions that are based on the expanding universe hypothesis”, finds that none of the published expanding-universe predictions of galaxy-size growth fit the actual data. All of the proposed physical mechanisms for galaxy growth, such as galaxy mergers, also contradict observations. However, the paper finds that the data are closely fit by the contrary hypothesis that the universe is not expanding, and that the redshift of light is caused by some other, currently unknown, process.
> > > >
> > > > In 2020, Lerner presented to the American Astronomical Society meeting a new study showing that bedrock predictions of the Big Bang are contradicted by observations. The study looks at the origin and abundance of three key light elements that are hypothesized to have been created by the Big Bang. Precise amounts of helium, deuterium and lithium are predicted to have been formed by fusion reactions in the dense, extremely hot initial instants of the Big Bang.
> > > >
> > > > For both lithium and helium, the study shows, observations of abundances in old stars now differ from predictions by more than a dozen standard deviations and the gap has been widening at an accelerating pace. The oldest stars have less than half the helium and less than one tenth the lithium than that predicted by Big Bang Nucleosynthesis theory. The lowest lithium levels observed are less than 1% that predicted by the theory. Indeed, the evidence is consistent with no helium or lithium having been formed before the first stars in our galaxy.
> > > > --------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Summary: All pseudo-theories based on the BBT and Hubble's red shifting
> > > > fail to explain stellar and galactic composition. Negationism about the role
> > > > of electrical currents and huge magnetic phenomena at galactic level force
> > > > the invention of "dark matter and energy" to adapt 1915 GR to the failed
> > > > interpretation of galaxy rotation curves.
> > > >
> > > > Current establishment backed theories can't explain the existence of quasars
> > > > or the "calculated" existence of less than 6% of baryonic matter in the
> > > > composition of the universe.
> > > >
> > > > Plasma cosmology has been applied to simulations in supercomputers
> > > > without the need of inventions like dark matter/energy filling the remaining
> > > > 95% structure of the "expanding universe" and the failed theories of
> > > > galaxies rotation.
> > > >
> > > > BBT and GR are just infantile fairy tales.
> > Only in your dreams. Evidence rules, Got any?
> > > Instead of postulating a dark matter halo to account for the galactic rotation curve, it is better to suppose that mass is in the stars, so they have underestimated the mass of stars. Rather than stars pinging out of the galaxy, they are more likely orbiting larger masses within the galaxy. Look at our Sun's orbit around the galaxy. It is also supposed to be moving up and down and in and out at a 60 myr periodicity. This should require another center of mass capable of holding the Sun in its orbit.
> > Once again you are revealing you ignorance of the subject matter. The oscillations of the Sun going above and below the galactic plane are well understood and well documented. Of course, had you read the dang textbook you would already know all of this! The orbit of the Sun is simply inclined to the plan of the galaxy, no spooky forces are required. Just a proper education in astronomy, of which you are sorely lacking.
> >
> > The masses of most stars are equally well understood, so your claim that they are universally underestimated goes directly out of the window. You can make it up as you go along but that does not mean that you are even remotely correct.

> The textbooks are very ignorant and stupid. They lied to you and told you an infinite universe has centers everywhere.

How would you know? You have never read one in your life! You don't have the scientific brains of an orange.

Evidence rules. Got any that support this latest absurd claim of yours? No, I didn't think so...

On Tuesday, 28 November 2023 at 07:35:33 UTC+1, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 9:48:47 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 9:42:39 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 8:53:44 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:53:11 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > > > https://www.lppfusion.com/science/cosmic-connection/plasma-cosmology/
> > > > >
> > > > > EXCERPT
> > > > >
> > > > > In May, 2014, Lerner and colleagues Renato Falomo and Riccardo Scarpa published new evidence indicating that the universe is not in fact expanding. “Questions and Answers on The Science of Surface Brightness” gives more technical details on this study. Here are biographical sketches of the research team members, and background on “The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory”.
> > > > >
> > > > > Lerner elaborated this research in a 2018 paper published in the leading journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. The new study, titled “Observations contradict galaxy size and surface brightness predictions that are based on the expanding universe hypothesis”, finds that none of the published expanding-universe predictions of galaxy-size growth fit the actual data. All of the proposed physical mechanisms for galaxy growth, such as galaxy mergers, also contradict observations. However, the paper finds that the data are closely fit by the contrary hypothesis that the universe is not expanding, and that the redshift of light is caused by some other, currently unknown, process.
> > > > >
> > > > > In 2020, Lerner presented to the American Astronomical Society meeting a new study showing that bedrock predictions of the Big Bang are contradicted by observations. The study looks at the origin and abundance of three key light elements that are hypothesized to have been created by the Big Bang. Precise amounts of helium, deuterium and lithium are predicted to have been formed by fusion reactions in the dense, extremely hot initial instants of the Big Bang.
> > > > >
> > > > > For both lithium and helium, the study shows, observations of abundances in old stars now differ from predictions by more than a dozen standard deviations and the gap has been widening at an accelerating pace. The oldest stars have less than half the helium and less than one tenth the lithium than that predicted by Big Bang Nucleosynthesis theory. The lowest lithium levels observed are less than 1% that predicted by the theory. Indeed, the evidence is consistent with no helium or lithium having been formed before the first stars in our galaxy.
> > > > > --------------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Summary: All pseudo-theories based on the BBT and Hubble's red shifting
> > > > > fail to explain stellar and galactic composition. Negationism about the role
> > > > > of electrical currents and huge magnetic phenomena at galactic level force
> > > > > the invention of "dark matter and energy" to adapt 1915 GR to the failed
> > > > > interpretation of galaxy rotation curves.
> > > > >
> > > > > Current establishment backed theories can't explain the existence of quasars
> > > > > or the "calculated" existence of less than 6% of baryonic matter in the
> > > > > composition of the universe.
> > > > >
> > > > > Plasma cosmology has been applied to simulations in supercomputers
> > > > > without the need of inventions like dark matter/energy filling the remaining
> > > > > 95% structure of the "expanding universe" and the failed theories of
> > > > > galaxies rotation.
> > > > >
> > > > > BBT and GR are just infantile fairy tales.
> > > Only in your dreams. Evidence rules, Got any?
> > > > Instead of postulating a dark matter halo to account for the galactic rotation curve, it is better to suppose that mass is in the stars, so they have underestimated the mass of stars. Rather than stars pinging out of the galaxy, they are more likely orbiting larger masses within the galaxy. Look at our Sun's orbit around the galaxy. It is also supposed to be moving up and down and in and out at a 60 myr periodicity. This should require another center of mass capable of holding the Sun in its orbit.
> > > Once again you are revealing you ignorance of the subject matter. The oscillations of the Sun going above and below the galactic plane are well understood and well documented. Of course, had you read the dang textbook you would already know all of this! The orbit of the Sun is simply inclined to the plan of the galaxy, no spooky forces are required. Just a proper education in astronomy, of which you are sorely lacking.
> > >
> > > The masses of most stars are equally well understood, so your claim that they are universally underestimated goes directly out of the window. You can make it up as you go along but that does not mean that you are even remotely correct.
>
> > The textbooks are very ignorant and stupid. They lied to you and told you an infinite universe has centers everywhere.
> How would you know? You have never read one in your life! You don't have the scientific brains of an orange.
>
> Evidence rules. Got any that support this latest absurd claim of yours? No, I didn't think so...

Al, poor halfbrain, come on. The mumble of your
idiot guru was not even consistent, and the
evidence is only making you barking more
fiercely.
Instead any evidence The Shit has a bunch of
morons screaming of its magnificient evidence;
that's not the same.

On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 10:35:33 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 9:48:47 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 9:42:39 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 8:53:44 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:53:11 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > > > https://www.lppfusion.com/science/cosmic-connection/plasma-cosmology/
> > > > >
> > > > > EXCERPT
> > > > >
> > > > > In May, 2014, Lerner and colleagues Renato Falomo and Riccardo Scarpa published new evidence indicating that the universe is not in fact expanding. “Questions and Answers on The Science of Surface Brightness” gives more technical details on this study. Here are biographical sketches of the research team members, and background on “The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory”.
> > > > >
> > > > > Lerner elaborated this research in a 2018 paper published in the leading journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. The new study, titled “Observations contradict galaxy size and surface brightness predictions that are based on the expanding universe hypothesis”, finds that none of the published expanding-universe predictions of galaxy-size growth fit the actual data. All of the proposed physical mechanisms for galaxy growth, such as galaxy mergers, also contradict observations. However, the paper finds that the data are closely fit by the contrary hypothesis that the universe is not expanding, and that the redshift of light is caused by some other, currently unknown, process.
> > > > >
> > > > > In 2020, Lerner presented to the American Astronomical Society meeting a new study showing that bedrock predictions of the Big Bang are contradicted by observations. The study looks at the origin and abundance of three key light elements that are hypothesized to have been created by the Big Bang. Precise amounts of helium, deuterium and lithium are predicted to have been formed by fusion reactions in the dense, extremely hot initial instants of the Big Bang.
> > > > >
> > > > > For both lithium and helium, the study shows, observations of abundances in old stars now differ from predictions by more than a dozen standard deviations and the gap has been widening at an accelerating pace. The oldest stars have less than half the helium and less than one tenth the lithium than that predicted by Big Bang Nucleosynthesis theory. The lowest lithium levels observed are less than 1% that predicted by the theory. Indeed, the evidence is consistent with no helium or lithium having been formed before the first stars in our galaxy.
> > > > > --------------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Summary: All pseudo-theories based on the BBT and Hubble's red shifting
> > > > > fail to explain stellar and galactic composition. Negationism about the role
> > > > > of electrical currents and huge magnetic phenomena at galactic level force
> > > > > the invention of "dark matter and energy" to adapt 1915 GR to the failed
> > > > > interpretation of galaxy rotation curves.
> > > > >
> > > > > Current establishment backed theories can't explain the existence of quasars
> > > > > or the "calculated" existence of less than 6% of baryonic matter in the
> > > > > composition of the universe.
> > > > >
> > > > > Plasma cosmology has been applied to simulations in supercomputers
> > > > > without the need of inventions like dark matter/energy filling the remaining
> > > > > 95% structure of the "expanding universe" and the failed theories of
> > > > > galaxies rotation.
> > > > >
> > > > > BBT and GR are just infantile fairy tales.
> > > Only in your dreams. Evidence rules, Got any?
> > > > Instead of postulating a dark matter halo to account for the galactic rotation curve, it is better to suppose that mass is in the stars, so they have underestimated the mass of stars. Rather than stars pinging out of the galaxy, they are more likely orbiting larger masses within the galaxy. Look at our Sun's orbit around the galaxy. It is also supposed to be moving up and down and in and out at a 60 myr periodicity. This should require another center of mass capable of holding the Sun in its orbit.
> > > Once again you are revealing you ignorance of the subject matter. The oscillations of the Sun going above and below the galactic plane are well understood and well documented. Of course, had you read the dang textbook you would already know all of this! The orbit of the Sun is simply inclined to the plan of the galaxy, no spooky forces are required. Just a proper education in astronomy, of which you are sorely lacking.
> > >
> > > The masses of most stars are equally well understood, so your claim that they are universally underestimated goes directly out of the window. You can make it up as you go along but that does not mean that you are even remotely correct.
>
> > The textbooks are very ignorant and stupid. They lied to you and told you an infinite universe has centers everywhere.
> How would you know? You have never read one in your life! You don't have the scientific brains of an orange.
>
> Evidence rules. Got any that support this latest absurd claim of yours? No, I didn't think so...
They aren't claims. They are my own interpretation. The accepted science is very ignorant.

On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 10:35:33 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 9:48:47 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 9:42:39 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 8:53:44 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:53:11 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > > > https://www.lppfusion.com/science/cosmic-connection/plasma-cosmology/
> > > > >
> > > > > EXCERPT
> > > > >
> > > > > In May, 2014, Lerner and colleagues Renato Falomo and Riccardo Scarpa published new evidence indicating that the universe is not in fact expanding. “Questions and Answers on The Science of Surface Brightness” gives more technical details on this study. Here are biographical sketches of the research team members, and background on “The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory”.
> > > > >
> > > > > Lerner elaborated this research in a 2018 paper published in the leading journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. The new study, titled “Observations contradict galaxy size and surface brightness predictions that are based on the expanding universe hypothesis”, finds that none of the published expanding-universe predictions of galaxy-size growth fit the actual data. All of the proposed physical mechanisms for galaxy growth, such as galaxy mergers, also contradict observations. However, the paper finds that the data are closely fit by the contrary hypothesis that the universe is not expanding, and that the redshift of light is caused by some other, currently unknown, process.
> > > > >
> > > > > In 2020, Lerner presented to the American Astronomical Society meeting a new study showing that bedrock predictions of the Big Bang are contradicted by observations. The study looks at the origin and abundance of three key light elements that are hypothesized to have been created by the Big Bang. Precise amounts of helium, deuterium and lithium are predicted to have been formed by fusion reactions in the dense, extremely hot initial instants of the Big Bang.
> > > > >
> > > > > For both lithium and helium, the study shows, observations of abundances in old stars now differ from predictions by more than a dozen standard deviations and the gap has been widening at an accelerating pace. The oldest stars have less than half the helium and less than one tenth the lithium than that predicted by Big Bang Nucleosynthesis theory. The lowest lithium levels observed are less than 1% that predicted by the theory. Indeed, the evidence is consistent with no helium or lithium having been formed before the first stars in our galaxy.
> > > > > --------------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Summary: All pseudo-theories based on the BBT and Hubble's red shifting
> > > > > fail to explain stellar and galactic composition. Negationism about the role
> > > > > of electrical currents and huge magnetic phenomena at galactic level force
> > > > > the invention of "dark matter and energy" to adapt 1915 GR to the failed
> > > > > interpretation of galaxy rotation curves.
> > > > >
> > > > > Current establishment backed theories can't explain the existence of quasars
> > > > > or the "calculated" existence of less than 6% of baryonic matter in the
> > > > > composition of the universe.
> > > > >
> > > > > Plasma cosmology has been applied to simulations in supercomputers
> > > > > without the need of inventions like dark matter/energy filling the remaining
> > > > > 95% structure of the "expanding universe" and the failed theories of
> > > > > galaxies rotation.
> > > > >
> > > > > BBT and GR are just infantile fairy tales.
> > > Only in your dreams. Evidence rules, Got any?
> > > > Instead of postulating a dark matter halo to account for the galactic rotation curve, it is better to suppose that mass is in the stars, so they have underestimated the mass of stars. Rather than stars pinging out of the galaxy, they are more likely orbiting larger masses within the galaxy. Look at our Sun's orbit around the galaxy. It is also supposed to be moving up and down and in and out at a 60 myr periodicity. This should require another center of mass capable of holding the Sun in its orbit.
> > > Once again you are revealing you ignorance of the subject matter. The oscillations of the Sun going above and below the galactic plane are well understood and well documented. Of course, had you read the dang textbook you would already know all of this! The orbit of the Sun is simply inclined to the plan of the galaxy, no spooky forces are required. Just a proper education in astronomy, of which you are sorely lacking.
> > >
> > > The masses of most stars are equally well understood, so your claim that they are universally underestimated goes directly out of the window. You can make it up as you go along but that does not mean that you are even remotely correct.
>
> > The textbooks are very ignorant and stupid. They lied to you and told you an infinite universe has centers everywhere.
> How would you know? You have never read one in your life! You don't have the scientific brains of an orange.
>
> Evidence rules. Got any that support this latest absurd claim of yours? No, I didn't think so...
Paul, you fail to comprehend that many people have different opinions about science than the consensus and science isn't done by consensus or by censorious referees in dark back rooms of journals.

On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 10:35:33 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 9:48:47 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 9:42:39 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 8:53:44 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:53:11 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > > > https://www.lppfusion.com/science/cosmic-connection/plasma-cosmology/
> > > > >
> > > > > EXCERPT
> > > > >
> > > > > In May, 2014, Lerner and colleagues Renato Falomo and Riccardo Scarpa published new evidence indicating that the universe is not in fact expanding. “Questions and Answers on The Science of Surface Brightness” gives more technical details on this study. Here are biographical sketches of the research team members, and background on “The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory”.
> > > > >
> > > > > Lerner elaborated this research in a 2018 paper published in the leading journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. The new study, titled “Observations contradict galaxy size and surface brightness predictions that are based on the expanding universe hypothesis”, finds that none of the published expanding-universe predictions of galaxy-size growth fit the actual data. All of the proposed physical mechanisms for galaxy growth, such as galaxy mergers, also contradict observations. However, the paper finds that the data are closely fit by the contrary hypothesis that the universe is not expanding, and that the redshift of light is caused by some other, currently unknown, process.
> > > > >
> > > > > In 2020, Lerner presented to the American Astronomical Society meeting a new study showing that bedrock predictions of the Big Bang are contradicted by observations. The study looks at the origin and abundance of three key light elements that are hypothesized to have been created by the Big Bang. Precise amounts of helium, deuterium and lithium are predicted to have been formed by fusion reactions in the dense, extremely hot initial instants of the Big Bang.
> > > > >
> > > > > For both lithium and helium, the study shows, observations of abundances in old stars now differ from predictions by more than a dozen standard deviations and the gap has been widening at an accelerating pace. The oldest stars have less than half the helium and less than one tenth the lithium than that predicted by Big Bang Nucleosynthesis theory. The lowest lithium levels observed are less than 1% that predicted by the theory. Indeed, the evidence is consistent with no helium or lithium having been formed before the first stars in our galaxy.
> > > > > --------------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Summary: All pseudo-theories based on the BBT and Hubble's red shifting
> > > > > fail to explain stellar and galactic composition. Negationism about the role
> > > > > of electrical currents and huge magnetic phenomena at galactic level force
> > > > > the invention of "dark matter and energy" to adapt 1915 GR to the failed
> > > > > interpretation of galaxy rotation curves.
> > > > >
> > > > > Current establishment backed theories can't explain the existence of quasars
> > > > > or the "calculated" existence of less than 6% of baryonic matter in the
> > > > > composition of the universe.
> > > > >
> > > > > Plasma cosmology has been applied to simulations in supercomputers
> > > > > without the need of inventions like dark matter/energy filling the remaining
> > > > > 95% structure of the "expanding universe" and the failed theories of
> > > > > galaxies rotation.
> > > > >
> > > > > BBT and GR are just infantile fairy tales.
> > > Only in your dreams. Evidence rules, Got any?
> > > > Instead of postulating a dark matter halo to account for the galactic rotation curve, it is better to suppose that mass is in the stars, so they have underestimated the mass of stars. Rather than stars pinging out of the galaxy, they are more likely orbiting larger masses within the galaxy. Look at our Sun's orbit around the galaxy. It is also supposed to be moving up and down and in and out at a 60 myr periodicity. This should require another center of mass capable of holding the Sun in its orbit.
> > > Once again you are revealing you ignorance of the subject matter. The oscillations of the Sun going above and below the galactic plane are well understood and well documented. Of course, had you read the dang textbook you would already know all of this! The orbit of the Sun is simply inclined to the plan of the galaxy, no spooky forces are required. Just a proper education in astronomy, of which you are sorely lacking.
> > >
> > > The masses of most stars are equally well understood, so your claim that they are universally underestimated goes directly out of the window. You can make it up as you go along but that does not mean that you are even remotely correct.
>
> > The textbooks are very ignorant and stupid. They lied to you and told you an infinite universe has centers everywhere.
> How would you know? You have never read one in your life! You don't have the scientific brains of an orange.
>
> Evidence rules. Got any that support this latest absurd claim of yours? No, I didn't think so...
Paul, you are like a woman because they seek consensus, and unlike a male who debates. "How women changed the university atmosphere" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjmmPrqQ_Vk

On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 12:47:56 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 10:35:33 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 9:48:47 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 9:42:39 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 8:53:44 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:53:11 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > > > > https://www.lppfusion.com/science/cosmic-connection/plasma-cosmology/
> > > > > >
> > > > > > EXCERPT
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In May, 2014, Lerner and colleagues Renato Falomo and Riccardo Scarpa published new evidence indicating that the universe is not in fact expanding. “Questions and Answers on The Science of Surface Brightness” gives more technical details on this study. Here are biographical sketches of the research team members, and background on “The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory”.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Lerner elaborated this research in a 2018 paper published in the leading journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. The new study, titled “Observations contradict galaxy size and surface brightness predictions that are based on the expanding universe hypothesis”, finds that none of the published expanding-universe predictions of galaxy-size growth fit the actual data. All of the proposed physical mechanisms for galaxy growth, such as galaxy mergers, also contradict observations. However, the paper finds that the data are closely fit by the contrary hypothesis that the universe is not expanding, and that the redshift of light is caused by some other, currently unknown, process.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In 2020, Lerner presented to the American Astronomical Society meeting a new study showing that bedrock predictions of the Big Bang are contradicted by observations. The study looks at the origin and abundance of three key light elements that are hypothesized to have been created by the Big Bang. Precise amounts of helium, deuterium and lithium are predicted to have been formed by fusion reactions in the dense, extremely hot initial instants of the Big Bang.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For both lithium and helium, the study shows, observations of abundances in old stars now differ from predictions by more than a dozen standard deviations and the gap has been widening at an accelerating pace. The oldest stars have less than half the helium and less than one tenth the lithium than that predicted by Big Bang Nucleosynthesis theory. The lowest lithium levels observed are less than 1% that predicted by the theory. Indeed, the evidence is consistent with no helium or lithium having been formed before the first stars in our galaxy.
> > > > > > --------------------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Summary: All pseudo-theories based on the BBT and Hubble's red shifting
> > > > > > fail to explain stellar and galactic composition. Negationism about the role
> > > > > > of electrical currents and huge magnetic phenomena at galactic level force
> > > > > > the invention of "dark matter and energy" to adapt 1915 GR to the failed
> > > > > > interpretation of galaxy rotation curves.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Current establishment backed theories can't explain the existence of quasars
> > > > > > or the "calculated" existence of less than 6% of baryonic matter in the
> > > > > > composition of the universe.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Plasma cosmology has been applied to simulations in supercomputers
> > > > > > without the need of inventions like dark matter/energy filling the remaining
> > > > > > 95% structure of the "expanding universe" and the failed theories of
> > > > > > galaxies rotation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > BBT and GR are just infantile fairy tales.

> > > > Only in your dreams. Evidence rules, Got any?

> > > > > Instead of postulating a dark matter halo to account for the galactic rotation curve, it is better to suppose that mass is in the stars, so they have underestimated the mass of stars. Rather than stars pinging out of the galaxy, they are more likely orbiting larger masses within the galaxy.. Look at our Sun's orbit around the galaxy. It is also supposed to be moving up and down and in and out at a 60 myr periodicity. This should require another center of mass capable of holding the Sun in its orbit.

> > > > Once again you are revealing you ignorance of the subject matter. The oscillations of the Sun going above and below the galactic plane are well understood and well documented. Of course, had you read the dang textbook you would already know all of this! The orbit of the Sun is simply inclined to the plan of the galaxy, no spooky forces are required. Just a proper education in astronomy, of which you are sorely lacking.
> > > >
> > > > The masses of most stars are equally well understood, so your claim that they are universally underestimated goes directly out of the window. You can make it up as you go along but that does not mean that you are even remotely correct.
> >
> > > The textbooks are very ignorant and stupid. They lied to you and told you an infinite universe has centers everywhere.

> > How would you know? You have never read one in your life! You don't have the scientific brains of an orange.
> >
> > Evidence rules. Got any that support this latest absurd claim of yours? No, I didn't think so...

> Paul, you are like a woman because they seek consensus, and unlike a male who debates. "How women changed the university atmosphere" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjmmPrqQ_

You obviously don't know any more about women than you do about relativity!

Consensus is not evidence. Opinions are not evidence. Your claim that textbooks are very ignorant and stupid is just your unsupported opinion, and is valueless. ALL of your opinions about relativity are valueless. Any claim you make about relativity needs to be supported by evidence, and you have absolutely none to offer. ZERO.

You remain eternally clueless.

On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 11:54:10 AM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 10:35:33 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 9:48:47 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 9:42:39 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 8:53:44 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:53:11 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > > > > https://www.lppfusion.com/science/cosmic-connection/plasma-cosmology/
> > > > > >
> > > > > > EXCERPT
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In May, 2014, Lerner and colleagues Renato Falomo and Riccardo Scarpa published new evidence indicating that the universe is not in fact expanding. “Questions and Answers on The Science of Surface Brightness” gives more technical details on this study. Here are biographical sketches of the research team members, and background on “The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory”.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Lerner elaborated this research in a 2018 paper published in the leading journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. The new study, titled “Observations contradict galaxy size and surface brightness predictions that are based on the expanding universe hypothesis”, finds that none of the published expanding-universe predictions of galaxy-size growth fit the actual data. All of the proposed physical mechanisms for galaxy growth, such as galaxy mergers, also contradict observations. However, the paper finds that the data are closely fit by the contrary hypothesis that the universe is not expanding, and that the redshift of light is caused by some other, currently unknown, process.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In 2020, Lerner presented to the American Astronomical Society meeting a new study showing that bedrock predictions of the Big Bang are contradicted by observations. The study looks at the origin and abundance of three key light elements that are hypothesized to have been created by the Big Bang. Precise amounts of helium, deuterium and lithium are predicted to have been formed by fusion reactions in the dense, extremely hot initial instants of the Big Bang.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For both lithium and helium, the study shows, observations of abundances in old stars now differ from predictions by more than a dozen standard deviations and the gap has been widening at an accelerating pace. The oldest stars have less than half the helium and less than one tenth the lithium than that predicted by Big Bang Nucleosynthesis theory. The lowest lithium levels observed are less than 1% that predicted by the theory. Indeed, the evidence is consistent with no helium or lithium having been formed before the first stars in our galaxy.
> > > > > > --------------------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Summary: All pseudo-theories based on the BBT and Hubble's red shifting
> > > > > > fail to explain stellar and galactic composition. Negationism about the role
> > > > > > of electrical currents and huge magnetic phenomena at galactic level force
> > > > > > the invention of "dark matter and energy" to adapt 1915 GR to the failed
> > > > > > interpretation of galaxy rotation curves.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Current establishment backed theories can't explain the existence of quasars
> > > > > > or the "calculated" existence of less than 6% of baryonic matter in the
> > > > > > composition of the universe.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Plasma cosmology has been applied to simulations in supercomputers
> > > > > > without the need of inventions like dark matter/energy filling the remaining
> > > > > > 95% structure of the "expanding universe" and the failed theories of
> > > > > > galaxies rotation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > BBT and GR are just infantile fairy tales.
> > > > Only in your dreams. Evidence rules, Got any?
> > > > > Instead of postulating a dark matter halo to account for the galactic rotation curve, it is better to suppose that mass is in the stars, so they have underestimated the mass of stars. Rather than stars pinging out of the galaxy, they are more likely orbiting larger masses within the galaxy.. Look at our Sun's orbit around the galaxy. It is also supposed to be moving up and down and in and out at a 60 myr periodicity. This should require another center of mass capable of holding the Sun in its orbit.
> > > > Once again you are revealing you ignorance of the subject matter. The oscillations of the Sun going above and below the galactic plane are well understood and well documented. Of course, had you read the dang textbook you would already know all of this! The orbit of the Sun is simply inclined to the plan of the galaxy, no spooky forces are required. Just a proper education in astronomy, of which you are sorely lacking.
> > > >
> > > > The masses of most stars are equally well understood, so your claim that they are universally underestimated goes directly out of the window. You can make it up as you go along but that does not mean that you are even remotely correct.
> >
> > > The textbooks are very ignorant and stupid. They lied to you and told you an infinite universe has centers everywhere.
> > How would you know? You have never read one in your life! You don't have the scientific brains of an orange.
> >
> > Evidence rules. Got any that support this latest absurd claim of yours? No, I didn't think so...

> Paul, you fail to comprehend that many people have different opinions about science than the consensus and science isn't done by consensus or by censorious referees in dark back rooms of journals.

I understand the scientific method very well. Science is done by forming theories that are supported by evidence in the form of observations and/or experiments. Relativity is widely supported by both observations and experiments, and you cannot show otherwise, despite your constant blathering that you have done so. You have not. Not even close.

On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 9:36:35 PM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote:

<snip>

> I understand the scientific method very well. Science is done by forming theories that are supported by evidence in the form of observations and/or experiments. Relativity is widely supported by both observations and experiments, and you cannot show otherwise, despite your constant blathering that you have done so. You have not. Not even close.

Imbecile, you contradict yourself as it correspond to a fucking retarded.

"Science is done by forming theories that are supported by evidence in the form of observations and/or experiments".

AND THEN WRITE

"Relativity is widely supported by both observations and experiments."

In 1905, the cretin plagiarized another imbecile (Lorentz), who was supported by Poincaré since 1895 in order to obtain
his stupid formulation of length contraction, as suggested by FitzGerald in 1892, in order to explain the MM Experiment.

So relativity was derived from a lunatic pseudo-theory WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE IN ANY FORM, and continues so.

Of course, generations of assholes saw an opportunity to become famous around this novelty, and started to find evidences AFTER the theory.

It took 17 years for the first cretin (Compton) to make a fraudulent experiment, claimed by all the cretins (like you) that needed to keep a job in
the new field (as yours, as a HS teacher of physics).

Start studying how to write coherent things, not things that are in conflict between them. It took 28 words for you to show everyone that you're
a drooling stupid.

On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 4:36:35 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 11:54:10 AM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 10:35:33 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 9:48:47 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 9:42:39 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 8:53:44 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:53:11 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > > > > > https://www.lppfusion.com/science/cosmic-connection/plasma-cosmology/
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > EXCERPT
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In May, 2014, Lerner and colleagues Renato Falomo and Riccardo Scarpa published new evidence indicating that the universe is not in fact expanding. “Questions and Answers on The Science of Surface Brightness” gives more technical details on this study. Here are biographical sketches of the research team members, and background on “The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory”.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Lerner elaborated this research in a 2018 paper published in the leading journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. The new study, titled “Observations contradict galaxy size and surface brightness predictions that are based on the expanding universe hypothesis”, finds that none of the published expanding-universe predictions of galaxy-size growth fit the actual data. All of the proposed physical mechanisms for galaxy growth, such as galaxy mergers, also contradict observations. However, the paper finds that the data are closely fit by the contrary hypothesis that the universe is not expanding, and that the redshift of light is caused by some other, currently unknown, process.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In 2020, Lerner presented to the American Astronomical Society meeting a new study showing that bedrock predictions of the Big Bang are contradicted by observations. The study looks at the origin and abundance of three key light elements that are hypothesized to have been created by the Big Bang. Precise amounts of helium, deuterium and lithium are predicted to have been formed by fusion reactions in the dense, extremely hot initial instants of the Big Bang.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > For both lithium and helium, the study shows, observations of abundances in old stars now differ from predictions by more than a dozen standard deviations and the gap has been widening at an accelerating pace. The oldest stars have less than half the helium and less than one tenth the lithium than that predicted by Big Bang Nucleosynthesis theory. The lowest lithium levels observed are less than 1% that predicted by the theory. Indeed, the evidence is consistent with no helium or lithium having been formed before the first stars in our galaxy.
> > > > > > > --------------------------------------------
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Summary: All pseudo-theories based on the BBT and Hubble's red shifting
> > > > > > > fail to explain stellar and galactic composition. Negationism about the role
> > > > > > > of electrical currents and huge magnetic phenomena at galactic level force
> > > > > > > the invention of "dark matter and energy" to adapt 1915 GR to the failed
> > > > > > > interpretation of galaxy rotation curves.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Current establishment backed theories can't explain the existence of quasars
> > > > > > > or the "calculated" existence of less than 6% of baryonic matter in the
> > > > > > > composition of the universe.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Plasma cosmology has been applied to simulations in supercomputers
> > > > > > > without the need of inventions like dark matter/energy filling the remaining
> > > > > > > 95% structure of the "expanding universe" and the failed theories of
> > > > > > > galaxies rotation.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > BBT and GR are just infantile fairy tales.
> > > > > Only in your dreams. Evidence rules, Got any?
> > > > > > Instead of postulating a dark matter halo to account for the galactic rotation curve, it is better to suppose that mass is in the stars, so they have underestimated the mass of stars. Rather than stars pinging out of the galaxy, they are more likely orbiting larger masses within the galaxy. Look at our Sun's orbit around the galaxy. It is also supposed to be moving up and down and in and out at a 60 myr periodicity. This should require another center of mass capable of holding the Sun in its orbit.
> > > > > Once again you are revealing you ignorance of the subject matter. The oscillations of the Sun going above and below the galactic plane are well understood and well documented. Of course, had you read the dang textbook you would already know all of this! The orbit of the Sun is simply inclined to the plan of the galaxy, no spooky forces are required. Just a proper education in astronomy, of which you are sorely lacking.
> > > > >
> > > > > The masses of most stars are equally well understood, so your claim that they are universally underestimated goes directly out of the window.. You can make it up as you go along but that does not mean that you are even remotely correct.
> > >
> > > > The textbooks are very ignorant and stupid. They lied to you and told you an infinite universe has centers everywhere.
> > > How would you know? You have never read one in your life! You don't have the scientific brains of an orange.
> > >
> > > Evidence rules. Got any that support this latest absurd claim of yours? No, I didn't think so...
>
> > Paul, you fail to comprehend that many people have different opinions about science than the consensus and science isn't done by consensus or by censorious referees in dark back rooms of journals.
> I understand the scientific method very well. Science is done by forming theories that are supported by evidence in the form of observations and/or experiments. Relativity is widely supported by both observations and experiments, and you cannot show otherwise, despite your constant blathering that you have done so. You have not. Not even close.
I've tried to help you learn to reason but I find no value in your discussions because they are merely appeals to authority instead of to reason.

On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 7:14:28 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 9:36:35 PM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > I understand the scientific method very well. Science is done by forming theories that are supported by evidence in the form of observations and/or experiments. Relativity is widely supported by both observations and experiments, and you cannot show otherwise, despite your constant blathering that you have done so. You have not. Not even close.
> Imbecile, you contradict yourself as it correspond to a fucking retarded.
> "Science is done by forming theories that are supported by evidence in the form of observations and/or experiments".
> AND THEN WRITE
>
> "Relativity is widely supported by both observations and experiments."
>
> In 1905, the cretin plagiarized another imbecile (Lorentz), who was supported by Poincaré since 1895 in order to obtain
> his stupid formulation of length contraction, as suggested by FitzGerald in 1892, in order to explain the MM Experiment.
>
> So relativity was derived from a lunatic pseudo-theory WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE IN ANY FORM, and continues so.
>
> Of course, generations of assholes saw an opportunity to become famous around this novelty, and started to find evidences AFTER the theory.
>
> It took 17 years for the first cretin (Compton) to make a fraudulent experiment, claimed by all the cretins (like you) that needed to keep a job in
> the new field (as yours, as a HS teacher of physics).
>
> Start studying how to write coherent things, not things that are in conflict between them. It took 28 words for you to show everyone that you're
> a drooling stupid.
If Paul was a High School teacher he couldn't do anything but read the text out loud without understanding it.

On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 7:45:28 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 4:36:35 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 11:54:10 AM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 10:35:33 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 9:48:47 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 9:42:39 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 8:53:44 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:53:11 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > > > > > > https://www.lppfusion.com/science/cosmic-connection/plasma-cosmology/
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > EXCERPT
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In May, 2014, Lerner and colleagues Renato Falomo and Riccardo Scarpa published new evidence indicating that the universe is not in fact expanding. “Questions and Answers on The Science of Surface Brightness” gives more technical details on this study. Here are biographical sketches of the research team members, and background on “The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory”.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Lerner elaborated this research in a 2018 paper published in the leading journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. The new study, titled “Observations contradict galaxy size and surface brightness predictions that are based on the expanding universe hypothesis”, finds that none of the published expanding-universe predictions of galaxy-size growth fit the actual data. All of the proposed physical mechanisms for galaxy growth, such as galaxy mergers, also contradict observations. However, the paper finds that the data are closely fit by the contrary hypothesis that the universe is not expanding, and that the redshift of light is caused by some other, currently unknown, process.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In 2020, Lerner presented to the American Astronomical Society meeting a new study showing that bedrock predictions of the Big Bang are contradicted by observations. The study looks at the origin and abundance of three key light elements that are hypothesized to have been created by the Big Bang. Precise amounts of helium, deuterium and lithium are predicted to have been formed by fusion reactions in the dense, extremely hot initial instants of the Big Bang.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > For both lithium and helium, the study shows, observations of abundances in old stars now differ from predictions by more than a dozen standard deviations and the gap has been widening at an accelerating pace. The oldest stars have less than half the helium and less than one tenth the lithium than that predicted by Big Bang Nucleosynthesis theory. The lowest lithium levels observed are less than 1% that predicted by the theory. Indeed, the evidence is consistent with no helium or lithium having been formed before the first stars in our galaxy.
> > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Summary: All pseudo-theories based on the BBT and Hubble's red shifting
> > > > > > > > fail to explain stellar and galactic composition. Negationism about the role
> > > > > > > > of electrical currents and huge magnetic phenomena at galactic level force
> > > > > > > > the invention of "dark matter and energy" to adapt 1915 GR to the failed
> > > > > > > > interpretation of galaxy rotation curves.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Current establishment backed theories can't explain the existence of quasars
> > > > > > > > or the "calculated" existence of less than 6% of baryonic matter in the
> > > > > > > > composition of the universe.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Plasma cosmology has been applied to simulations in supercomputers
> > > > > > > > without the need of inventions like dark matter/energy filling the remaining
> > > > > > > > 95% structure of the "expanding universe" and the failed theories of
> > > > > > > > galaxies rotation.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > BBT and GR are just infantile fairy tales.
> > > > > > Only in your dreams. Evidence rules, Got any?
> > > > > > > Instead of postulating a dark matter halo to account for the galactic rotation curve, it is better to suppose that mass is in the stars, so they have underestimated the mass of stars. Rather than stars pinging out of the galaxy, they are more likely orbiting larger masses within the galaxy. Look at our Sun's orbit around the galaxy. It is also supposed to be moving up and down and in and out at a 60 myr periodicity. This should require another center of mass capable of holding the Sun in its orbit.
> > > > > > Once again you are revealing you ignorance of the subject matter. The oscillations of the Sun going above and below the galactic plane are well understood and well documented. Of course, had you read the dang textbook you would already know all of this! The orbit of the Sun is simply inclined to the plan of the galaxy, no spooky forces are required. Just a proper education in astronomy, of which you are sorely lacking.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The masses of most stars are equally well understood, so your claim that they are universally underestimated goes directly out of the window. You can make it up as you go along but that does not mean that you are even remotely correct.
> > > >
> > > > > The textbooks are very ignorant and stupid. They lied to you and told you an infinite universe has centers everywhere.
> > > > How would you know? You have never read one in your life! You don't have the scientific brains of an orange.
> > > >
> > > > Evidence rules. Got any that support this latest absurd claim of yours? No, I didn't think so...
> >
> > > Paul, you fail to comprehend that many people have different opinions about science than the consensus and science isn't done by consensus or by censorious referees in dark back rooms of journals.
> > I understand the scientific method very well. Science is done by forming theories that are supported by evidence in the form of observations and/or experiments. Relativity is widely supported by both observations and experiments, and you cannot show otherwise, despite your constant blathering that you have done so. You have not. Not even close.

> I've tried to help you learn to reason but I find no value in your discussions because they are merely appeals to authority instead of to reason.

Larry, reasoning is *way* beyond your skill set. Please, just give it up.

On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 7:53:10 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 7:14:28 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 9:36:35 PM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> > > I understand the scientific method very well. Science is done by forming theories that are supported by evidence in the form of observations and/or experiments. Relativity is widely supported by both observations and experiments, and you cannot show otherwise, despite your constant blathering that you have done so. You have not. Not even close.
> > Imbecile, you contradict yourself as it correspond to a fucking retarded.
> > "Science is done by forming theories that are supported by evidence in the form of observations and/or experiments".
> > AND THEN WRITE
> >
> > "Relativity is widely supported by both observations and experiments."
> >
> > In 1905, the cretin plagiarized another imbecile (Lorentz), who was supported by Poincaré since 1895 in order to obtain
> > his stupid formulation of length contraction, as suggested by FitzGerald in 1892, in order to explain the MM Experiment.
> >
> > So relativity was derived from a lunatic pseudo-theory WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE IN ANY FORM, and continues so.
> >
> > Of course, generations of assholes saw an opportunity to become famous around this novelty, and started to find evidences AFTER the theory.
> >
> > It took 17 years for the first cretin (Compton) to make a fraudulent experiment, claimed by all the cretins (like you) that needed to keep a job in
> > the new field (as yours, as a HS teacher of physics).
> >
> > Start studying how to write coherent things, not things that are in conflict between them. It took 28 words for you to show everyone that you're
> > a drooling stupid.

> If Paul was a High School teacher he couldn't do anything but read the text out loud without understanding it.

That is pretty big talk from a guy who has never even read a physics textbook! Larry, as a TA in my college days I occasionally taught a freshman astronomy class, so I have a pretty good bullshit meter when it comes to separating the wheat from the chaff, and *you* are clearly the chaff.

On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 8:04:20 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 7:45:28 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 4:36:35 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 11:54:10 AM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 10:35:33 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 9:48:47 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 9:42:39 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > > > > On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 8:53:44 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:53:11 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > > > > > > > https://www.lppfusion.com/science/cosmic-connection/plasma-cosmology/
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > EXCERPT
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > In May, 2014, Lerner and colleagues Renato Falomo and Riccardo Scarpa published new evidence indicating that the universe is not in fact expanding. “Questions and Answers on The Science of Surface Brightness” gives more technical details on this study. Here are biographical sketches of the research team members, and background on “The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory”.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Lerner elaborated this research in a 2018 paper published in the leading journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. The new study, titled “Observations contradict galaxy size and surface brightness predictions that are based on the expanding universe hypothesis”, finds that none of the published expanding-universe predictions of galaxy-size growth fit the actual data. All of the proposed physical mechanisms for galaxy growth, such as galaxy mergers, also contradict observations. However, the paper finds that the data are closely fit by the contrary hypothesis that the universe is not expanding, and that the redshift of light is caused by some other, currently unknown, process.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > In 2020, Lerner presented to the American Astronomical Society meeting a new study showing that bedrock predictions of the Big Bang are contradicted by observations. The study looks at the origin and abundance of three key light elements that are hypothesized to have been created by the Big Bang. Precise amounts of helium, deuterium and lithium are predicted to have been formed by fusion reactions in the dense, extremely hot initial instants of the Big Bang.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > For both lithium and helium, the study shows, observations of abundances in old stars now differ from predictions by more than a dozen standard deviations and the gap has been widening at an accelerating pace. The oldest stars have less than half the helium and less than one tenth the lithium than that predicted by Big Bang Nucleosynthesis theory. The lowest lithium levels observed are less than 1% that predicted by the theory. Indeed, the evidence is consistent with no helium or lithium having been formed before the first stars in our galaxy.
> > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Summary: All pseudo-theories based on the BBT and Hubble's red shifting
> > > > > > > > > fail to explain stellar and galactic composition. Negationism about the role
> > > > > > > > > of electrical currents and huge magnetic phenomena at galactic level force
> > > > > > > > > the invention of "dark matter and energy" to adapt 1915 GR to the failed
> > > > > > > > > interpretation of galaxy rotation curves.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Current establishment backed theories can't explain the existence of quasars
> > > > > > > > > or the "calculated" existence of less than 6% of baryonic matter in the
> > > > > > > > > composition of the universe.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Plasma cosmology has been applied to simulations in supercomputers
> > > > > > > > > without the need of inventions like dark matter/energy filling the remaining
> > > > > > > > > 95% structure of the "expanding universe" and the failed theories of
> > > > > > > > > galaxies rotation.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > BBT and GR are just infantile fairy tales.
> > > > > > > Only in your dreams. Evidence rules, Got any?
> > > > > > > > Instead of postulating a dark matter halo to account for the galactic rotation curve, it is better to suppose that mass is in the stars, so they have underestimated the mass of stars. Rather than stars pinging out of the galaxy, they are more likely orbiting larger masses within the galaxy. Look at our Sun's orbit around the galaxy. It is also supposed to be moving up and down and in and out at a 60 myr periodicity. This should require another center of mass capable of holding the Sun in its orbit.
> > > > > > > Once again you are revealing you ignorance of the subject matter. The oscillations of the Sun going above and below the galactic plane are well understood and well documented. Of course, had you read the dang textbook you would already know all of this! The orbit of the Sun is simply inclined to the plan of the galaxy, no spooky forces are required. Just a proper education in astronomy, of which you are sorely lacking.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The masses of most stars are equally well understood, so your claim that they are universally underestimated goes directly out of the window. You can make it up as you go along but that does not mean that you are even remotely correct.
> > > > >
> > > > > > The textbooks are very ignorant and stupid. They lied to you and told you an infinite universe has centers everywhere.
> > > > > How would you know? You have never read one in your life! You don't have the scientific brains of an orange.
> > > > >
> > > > > Evidence rules. Got any that support this latest absurd claim of yours? No, I didn't think so...
> > >
> > > > Paul, you fail to comprehend that many people have different opinions about science than the consensus and science isn't done by consensus or by censorious referees in dark back rooms of journals.
> > > I understand the scientific method very well. Science is done by forming theories that are supported by evidence in the form of observations and/or experiments. Relativity is widely supported by both observations and experiments, and you cannot show otherwise, despite your constant blathering that you have done so. You have not. Not even close.
>
> > I've tried to help you learn to reason but I find no value in your discussions because they are merely appeals to authority instead of to reason.
> Larry, reasoning is *way* beyond your skill set. Please, just give it up.
I've given you every opportunity and now I admit for once and for all you are just a heckler.

On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 8:09:07 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 8:04:20 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 7:45:28 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 4:36:35 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 11:54:10 AM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 10:35:33 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 9:48:47 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > > > On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 9:42:39 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 8:53:44 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:53:11 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > https://www.lppfusion.com/science/cosmic-connection/plasma-cosmology/
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > EXCERPT
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > In May, 2014, Lerner and colleagues Renato Falomo and Riccardo Scarpa published new evidence indicating that the universe is not in fact expanding. “Questions and Answers on The Science of Surface Brightness” gives more technical details on this study. Here are biographical sketches of the research team members, and background on “The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory”.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Lerner elaborated this research in a 2018 paper published in the leading journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.. The new study, titled “Observations contradict galaxy size and surface brightness predictions that are based on the expanding universe hypothesis”, finds that none of the published expanding-universe predictions of galaxy-size growth fit the actual data. All of the proposed physical mechanisms for galaxy growth, such as galaxy mergers, also contradict observations. However, the paper finds that the data are closely fit by the contrary hypothesis that the universe is not expanding, and that the redshift of light is caused by some other, currently unknown, process.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > In 2020, Lerner presented to the American Astronomical Society meeting a new study showing that bedrock predictions of the Big Bang are contradicted by observations. The study looks at the origin and abundance of three key light elements that are hypothesized to have been created by the Big Bang. Precise amounts of helium, deuterium and lithium are predicted to have been formed by fusion reactions in the dense, extremely hot initial instants of the Big Bang.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > For both lithium and helium, the study shows, observations of abundances in old stars now differ from predictions by more than a dozen standard deviations and the gap has been widening at an accelerating pace. The oldest stars have less than half the helium and less than one tenth the lithium than that predicted by Big Bang Nucleosynthesis theory. The lowest lithium levels observed are less than 1% that predicted by the theory.. Indeed, the evidence is consistent with no helium or lithium having been formed before the first stars in our galaxy.
> > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Summary: All pseudo-theories based on the BBT and Hubble's red shifting
> > > > > > > > > > fail to explain stellar and galactic composition. Negationism about the role
> > > > > > > > > > of electrical currents and huge magnetic phenomena at galactic level force
> > > > > > > > > > the invention of "dark matter and energy" to adapt 1915 GR to the failed
> > > > > > > > > > interpretation of galaxy rotation curves.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Current establishment backed theories can't explain the existence of quasars
> > > > > > > > > > or the "calculated" existence of less than 6% of baryonic matter in the
> > > > > > > > > > composition of the universe.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Plasma cosmology has been applied to simulations in supercomputers
> > > > > > > > > > without the need of inventions like dark matter/energy filling the remaining
> > > > > > > > > > 95% structure of the "expanding universe" and the failed theories of
> > > > > > > > > > galaxies rotation.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > BBT and GR are just infantile fairy tales.
> > > > > > > > Only in your dreams. Evidence rules, Got any?
> > > > > > > > > Instead of postulating a dark matter halo to account for the galactic rotation curve, it is better to suppose that mass is in the stars, so they have underestimated the mass of stars. Rather than stars pinging out of the galaxy, they are more likely orbiting larger masses within the galaxy. Look at our Sun's orbit around the galaxy. It is also supposed to be moving up and down and in and out at a 60 myr periodicity. This should require another center of mass capable of holding the Sun in its orbit.
> > > > > > > > Once again you are revealing you ignorance of the subject matter. The oscillations of the Sun going above and below the galactic plane are well understood and well documented. Of course, had you read the dang textbook you would already know all of this! The orbit of the Sun is simply inclined to the plan of the galaxy, no spooky forces are required. Just a proper education in astronomy, of which you are sorely lacking.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The masses of most stars are equally well understood, so your claim that they are universally underestimated goes directly out of the window. You can make it up as you go along but that does not mean that you are even remotely correct.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > The textbooks are very ignorant and stupid. They lied to you and told you an infinite universe has centers everywhere.
> > > > > > How would you know? You have never read one in your life! You don't have the scientific brains of an orange.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Evidence rules. Got any that support this latest absurd claim of yours? No, I didn't think so...
> > > >
> > > > > Paul, you fail to comprehend that many people have different opinions about science than the consensus and science isn't done by consensus or by censorious referees in dark back rooms of journals.
> > > > I understand the scientific method very well. Science is done by forming theories that are supported by evidence in the form of observations and/or experiments. Relativity is widely supported by both observations and experiments, and you cannot show otherwise, despite your constant blathering that you have done so. You have not. Not even close.
> >
> > > I've tried to help you learn to reason but I find no value in your discussions because they are merely appeals to authority instead of to reason..
> > Larry, reasoning is *way* beyond your skill set. Please, just give it up.

> I've given you every opportunity and now I admit for once and for all you are just a heckler.

Larry, your outrageous claims invite heckling, just like Dick's claims. If anyone ever deserved it, it's you two!

Find another hobby, this one is way beyond you.

On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 8:08:47 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 7:53:10 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 7:14:28 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 9:36:35 PM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > > > I understand the scientific method very well. Science is done by forming theories that are supported by evidence in the form of observations and/or experiments. Relativity is widely supported by both observations and experiments, and you cannot show otherwise, despite your constant blathering that you have done so. You have not. Not even close.
> > > Imbecile, you contradict yourself as it correspond to a fucking retarded.
> > > "Science is done by forming theories that are supported by evidence in the form of observations and/or experiments".
> > > AND THEN WRITE
> > >
> > > "Relativity is widely supported by both observations and experiments."
> > >
> > > In 1905, the cretin plagiarized another imbecile (Lorentz), who was supported by Poincaré since 1895 in order to obtain
> > > his stupid formulation of length contraction, as suggested by FitzGerald in 1892, in order to explain the MM Experiment.
> > >
> > > So relativity was derived from a lunatic pseudo-theory WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE IN ANY FORM, and continues so.
> > >
> > > Of course, generations of assholes saw an opportunity to become famous around this novelty, and started to find evidences AFTER the theory.
> > >
> > > It took 17 years for the first cretin (Compton) to make a fraudulent experiment, claimed by all the cretins (like you) that needed to keep a job in
> > > the new field (as yours, as a HS teacher of physics).
> > >
> > > Start studying how to write coherent things, not things that are in conflict between them. It took 28 words for you to show everyone that you're
> > > a drooling stupid.
>
> > If Paul was a High School teacher he couldn't do anything but read the text out loud without understanding it.
> That is pretty big talk from a guy who has never even read a physics textbook! Larry, as a TA in my college days I occasionally taught a freshman astronomy class, so I have a pretty good bullshit meter when it comes to separating the wheat from the chaff, and *you* are clearly the chaff.
You have shown no evidence of any knowledge whatsoever. I have no need to convince you or anyone hear. I have turned all the stones and found nothing of value in the relativists. Your defense of it is vapid. Bye bye, Heckler.

On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 8:29:14 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 8:08:47 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 7:53:10 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 7:14:28 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 9:36:35 PM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > >
> > > > <snip>
> > > > > I understand the scientific method very well. Science is done by forming theories that are supported by evidence in the form of observations and/or experiments. Relativity is widely supported by both observations and experiments, and you cannot show otherwise, despite your constant blathering that you have done so. You have not. Not even close.
> > > > Imbecile, you contradict yourself as it correspond to a fucking retarded.
> > > > "Science is done by forming theories that are supported by evidence in the form of observations and/or experiments".
> > > > AND THEN WRITE
> > > >
> > > > "Relativity is widely supported by both observations and experiments."
> > > >
> > > > In 1905, the cretin plagiarized another imbecile (Lorentz), who was supported by Poincaré since 1895 in order to obtain
> > > > his stupid formulation of length contraction, as suggested by FitzGerald in 1892, in order to explain the MM Experiment.
> > > >
> > > > So relativity was derived from a lunatic pseudo-theory WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE IN ANY FORM, and continues so.
> > > >
> > > > Of course, generations of assholes saw an opportunity to become famous around this novelty, and started to find evidences AFTER the theory.
> > > >
> > > > It took 17 years for the first cretin (Compton) to make a fraudulent experiment, claimed by all the cretins (like you) that needed to keep a job in
> > > > the new field (as yours, as a HS teacher of physics).
> > > >
> > > > Start studying how to write coherent things, not things that are in conflict between them. It took 28 words for you to show everyone that you're
> > > > a drooling stupid.
> >
> > > If Paul was a High School teacher he couldn't do anything but read the text out loud without understanding it.
> > That is pretty big talk from a guy who has never even read a physics textbook! Larry, as a TA in my college days I occasionally taught a freshman astronomy class, so I have a pretty good bullshit meter when it comes to separating the wheat from the chaff, and *you* are clearly the chaff.

> You have shown no evidence of any knowledge whatsoever. I have no need to convince you or anyone hear. I have turned all the stones and found nothing of value in the relativists. Your defense of it is vapid. Bye bye, Heckler.

Larry, I have degrees in math, physics and astronomy. Sure, they were earned a very long time ago, but earned they were. You, on the other hand, have only your fantasies about relativity. I have read a LOT of textbooks, whereas you have not even read a single one. The reason you do not recognize any knowledge whatsoever is because you are completely clueless. You just don't know what you don't know and everyone can see this. If you don't want to respond to me anymore I can certainly understand why... you don't actually have any answers that make any sense. That's fine, don't respond... but I will continue to call bullshit when I see bullshit, and there isn't really anything you can do about that!

If you find no value from any of the participants here, than why are you here at all? Are you just a glutton for punishment? Masochistic, perhaps? Do you also smack your head against the wall because it feels so good when you stop? Inquiring minds want to know...

Bye bye yourself, don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.

On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 1:48:54 AM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote:

<snip>

> Larry, I have degrees in math, physics and astronomy. Sure, they were earned a very long time ago, but earned they were. You, on the other hand, have only your fantasies about relativity. I have read a LOT of textbooks, ....................................

Finally, some truth emerges. Dubious degrees from 1973, and A LOT of books read in 50 years, being that most of what you read you forgot.

A fucking PARROT with a memory erasing disease, for self-preservation.

I know of a true parrot which can sing the entire lyrics of more than 200 songs (and in tune). A 25 years old bird, which is about 150 years of your life,
and beats you hands-down.

Imagine if that parrot had memorized 200 books of physics, for your shame.

But experimental physics was not your strength when The Beatles were giving concerts, isn't it?

And, in any case, all of what know IS OBSOLETE 50 years later: Math, physics and in particular astronomy.

Do you know how to point a telescope to Alpha Centauri NOW (exactly now), from your house? Using which system of coordinates?

On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 9:42:54 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 1:48:54 AM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > Larry, I have degrees in math, physics and astronomy. Sure, they were earned a very long time ago, but earned they were. You, on the other hand, have only your fantasies about relativity. I have read a LOT of textbooks, ....................................
>
> Finally, some truth emerges. Dubious degrees from 1973, and A LOT of books read in 50 years, being that most of what you read you forgot.
>
> A fucking PARROT with a memory erasing disease, for self-preservation.
>
> I know of a true parrot which can sing the entire lyrics of more than 200 songs (and in tune). A 25 years old bird, which is about 150 years of your life,
> and beats you hands-down.
>
> Imagine if that parrot had memorized 200 books of physics, for your shame..
>
> But experimental physics was not your strength when The Beatles were giving concerts, isn't it?
>
> And, in any case, all of what know IS OBSOLETE 50 years later: Math, physics and in particular astronomy.
>
> Do you know how to point a telescope to Alpha Centauri NOW (exactly now), from your house? Using which system of coordinates?

There is nothing dubious about my degrees, Dick, why would there be? I earned them fair and square. Sure, physics and astronomy have made large strides since then and they have been mostly exciting. I have kept up as best as I can with the progress in the fields but there is a lot going on. But the basics remain the same now as they were then. Most of the stuff I learned by 1969 is definitely NOT obsolete, you are just showing your own ignorance of the subject matter. Anyone who was read my astronomy and physics textbooks from the 1960's would learn a lot of good astronomy and very little that has been refuted.

Alpha Centauri is not visible from my house, not ever, because it has a declination of about -61 degrees and my location has a declination of about +33 degrees... so at it closest approach to my southern horizon it is about 4 degrees below that horizon. I've seen it several times from Australia when I went there to observe in the Southern Sky for a couple of weeks. Of course, I *could* accurately point my telescope towards Alpha Centauri but it would be pointing at the ground! like all stars, it has a fixed RA and Dec so its location is easy to determine. I've also seen it from Hawaii a couple of times. It is close the the Southern Cross and this makes for a wonderful sight in the southern sky.

Your rants about relativity, Dick, only help to put you firmly in the School of Cranks and at this point in time you are the Lead Crank in this forum.... in my own opinion, of course.

Congratulations!

On Wednesday, 29 November 2023 at 05:48:54 UTC+1, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 8:29:14 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 8:08:47 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 7:53:10 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 7:14:28 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 9:36:35 PM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > I understand the scientific method very well. Science is done by forming theories that are supported by evidence in the form of observations and/or experiments. Relativity is widely supported by both observations and experiments, and you cannot show otherwise, despite your constant blathering that you have done so. You have not. Not even close.
> > > > > Imbecile, you contradict yourself as it correspond to a fucking retarded.
> > > > > "Science is done by forming theories that are supported by evidence in the form of observations and/or experiments".
> > > > > AND THEN WRITE
> > > > >
> > > > > "Relativity is widely supported by both observations and experiments."
> > > > >
> > > > > In 1905, the cretin plagiarized another imbecile (Lorentz), who was supported by Poincaré since 1895 in order to obtain
> > > > > his stupid formulation of length contraction, as suggested by FitzGerald in 1892, in order to explain the MM Experiment.
> > > > >
> > > > > So relativity was derived from a lunatic pseudo-theory WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE IN ANY FORM, and continues so.
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course, generations of assholes saw an opportunity to become famous around this novelty, and started to find evidences AFTER the theory.
> > > > >
> > > > > It took 17 years for the first cretin (Compton) to make a fraudulent experiment, claimed by all the cretins (like you) that needed to keep a job in
> > > > > the new field (as yours, as a HS teacher of physics).
> > > > >
> > > > > Start studying how to write coherent things, not things that are in conflict between them. It took 28 words for you to show everyone that you're
> > > > > a drooling stupid.
> > >
> > > > If Paul was a High School teacher he couldn't do anything but read the text out loud without understanding it.
> > > That is pretty big talk from a guy who has never even read a physics textbook! Larry, as a TA in my college days I occasionally taught a freshman astronomy class, so I have a pretty good bullshit meter when it comes to separating the wheat from the chaff, and *you* are clearly the chaff.
>
> > You have shown no evidence of any knowledge whatsoever. I have no need to convince you or anyone hear. I have turned all the stones and found nothing of value in the relativists. Your defense of it is vapid. Bye bye, Heckler.
> Larry, I have degrees in math, physics and astronomy. Sure, they were earned a very long time ago, but earned they were. You, on the other hand, have only your fantasies about relativity. I have read a LOT of textbooks, whereas you have not even read a single one. The reason you do not recognize any knowledge whatsoever is because you are completely clueless.

No, the reason is that you present nothing but
rants and insults.
And speaking of math, it's alwways good to remind
that your bunch of idiots had to announce its oldest
part false, as it didn't want to fit your madness.

On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 12:59:03 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 8:48:54 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 8:29:14 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 8:08:47 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 7:53:10 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 7:14:28 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 9:36:35 PM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > > I understand the scientific method very well. Science is done by forming theories that are supported by evidence in the form of observations and/or experiments. Relativity is widely supported by both observations and experiments, and you cannot show otherwise, despite your constant blathering that you have done so. You have not. Not even close.
> > > > > > Imbecile, you contradict yourself as it correspond to a fucking retarded.
> > > > > > "Science is done by forming theories that are supported by evidence in the form of observations and/or experiments".
> > > > > > AND THEN WRITE
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Relativity is widely supported by both observations and experiments."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In 1905, the cretin plagiarized another imbecile (Lorentz), who was supported by Poincaré since 1895 in order to obtain
> > > > > > his stupid formulation of length contraction, as suggested by FitzGerald in 1892, in order to explain the MM Experiment.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So relativity was derived from a lunatic pseudo-theory WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE IN ANY FORM, and continues so.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Of course, generations of assholes saw an opportunity to become famous around this novelty, and started to find evidences AFTER the theory..
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It took 17 years for the first cretin (Compton) to make a fraudulent experiment, claimed by all the cretins (like you) that needed to keep a job in
> > > > > > the new field (as yours, as a HS teacher of physics).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Start studying how to write coherent things, not things that are in conflict between them. It took 28 words for you to show everyone that you're
> > > > > > a drooling stupid.
> > > >
> > > > > If Paul was a High School teacher he couldn't do anything but read the text out loud without understanding it.
> > > > That is pretty big talk from a guy who has never even read a physics textbook! Larry, as a TA in my college days I occasionally taught a freshman astronomy class, so I have a pretty good bullshit meter when it comes to separating the wheat from the chaff, and *you* are clearly the chaff.
> >
> > > You have shown no evidence of any knowledge whatsoever. I have no need to convince you or anyone hear. I have turned all the stones and found nothing of value in the relativists. Your defense of it is vapid. Bye bye, Heckler.
> > Larry, I have degrees in math, physics and astronomy. Sure, they were earned a very long time ago, but earned they were. You, on the other hand, have only your fantasies about relativity. I have read a LOT of textbooks, whereas you have not even read a single one. The reason you do not recognize any knowledge whatsoever is because you are completely clueless. You just don't know what you don't know and everyone can see this. If you don't want to respond to me anymore I can certainly understand why... you don't actually have any answers that make any sense. That's fine, don't respond... but I will continue to call bullshit when I see bullshit, and there isn't really anything you can do about that!
> You need to go back to school paul. You have not taught yourself well
> >
> > If you find no value from any of the participants here, than why are you here at all? Are you just a glutton for punishment? Masochistic, perhaps? Do you also smack your head against the wall because it feels so good when you stop? Inquiring minds want to know...

> He is not mentally ill. You are.

Look who's talking! LOL

On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 8:48:54 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 8:29:14 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 8:08:47 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 7:53:10 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 7:14:28 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 9:36:35 PM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > I understand the scientific method very well. Science is done by forming theories that are supported by evidence in the form of observations and/or experiments. Relativity is widely supported by both observations and experiments, and you cannot show otherwise, despite your constant blathering that you have done so. You have not. Not even close.
> > > > > Imbecile, you contradict yourself as it correspond to a fucking retarded.
> > > > > "Science is done by forming theories that are supported by evidence in the form of observations and/or experiments".
> > > > > AND THEN WRITE
> > > > >
> > > > > "Relativity is widely supported by both observations and experiments."
> > > > >
> > > > > In 1905, the cretin plagiarized another imbecile (Lorentz), who was supported by Poincaré since 1895 in order to obtain
> > > > > his stupid formulation of length contraction, as suggested by FitzGerald in 1892, in order to explain the MM Experiment.
> > > > >
> > > > > So relativity was derived from a lunatic pseudo-theory WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE IN ANY FORM, and continues so.
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course, generations of assholes saw an opportunity to become famous around this novelty, and started to find evidences AFTER the theory.
> > > > >
> > > > > It took 17 years for the first cretin (Compton) to make a fraudulent experiment, claimed by all the cretins (like you) that needed to keep a job in
> > > > > the new field (as yours, as a HS teacher of physics).
> > > > >
> > > > > Start studying how to write coherent things, not things that are in conflict between them. It took 28 words for you to show everyone that you're
> > > > > a drooling stupid.
> > >
> > > > If Paul was a High School teacher he couldn't do anything but read the text out loud without understanding it.
> > > That is pretty big talk from a guy who has never even read a physics textbook! Larry, as a TA in my college days I occasionally taught a freshman astronomy class, so I have a pretty good bullshit meter when it comes to separating the wheat from the chaff, and *you* are clearly the chaff.
>
> > You have shown no evidence of any knowledge whatsoever. I have no need to convince you or anyone hear. I have turned all the stones and found nothing of value in the relativists. Your defense of it is vapid. Bye bye, Heckler.
> Larry, I have degrees in math, physics and astronomy. Sure, they were earned a very long time ago, but earned they were. You, on the other hand, have only your fantasies about relativity. I have read a LOT of textbooks, whereas you have not even read a single one. The reason you do not recognize any knowledge whatsoever is because you are completely clueless. You just don't know what you don't know and everyone can see this. If you don't want to respond to me anymore I can certainly understand why... you don't actually have any answers that make any sense. That's fine, don't respond... but I will continue to call bullshit when I see bullshit, and there isn't really anything you can do about that!
>
> If you find no value from any of the participants here, than why are you here at all? Are you just a glutton for punishment? Masochistic, perhaps? Do you also smack your head against the wall because it feels so good when you stop? Inquiring minds want to know...
>
> Bye bye yourself, don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.
As usual, you are only making appeals to "authority" instead of reason. Obviously, you're not capable of reasoning.