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.
The accepted view is that the galactic rotation curve proves there must be ten times as much mass in our galaxy than has been found in the stars. So it is thought there must be a dark matter halo accounting for the missing 90%. I venture to suppose that it may be more reasonable to look for that mass within the stars themselves instead of under rugs.

On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 5:56:07 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.

> The accepted view is that the galactic rotation curve proves there must be ten times as much mass in our galaxy than has been found in the stars. So it is thought there must be a dark matter halo accounting for the missing 90%. I venture to suppose that it may be more reasonable to look for that mass within the stars themselves instead of under rugs.

Your "venture to suppose" is not at all scientific. Evidence rules, and the evidence concerning the masses of individual stars has been determined beyond reproach, but since you have never actually studied the subject matter you remain clueless as to how all of this works.

Reason is something about which you are unfamiliar. There is an answer to all of this "dark matter" and "dark energy" stuff, but currently it remain mysterious. This is not a big surprise. it will not be you (or Dick) who solves the problem, but the scientific community will eventually tweak the current theories to make the cuffs match the collars... and that is how science works. Make observations and tweak the theory to match the observations. This will eventually sharpen the theory and make everyone happy.

Ain't science wonderful?

On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 6:45:30 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 5:56:07 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.
>
> > The accepted view is that the galactic rotation curve proves there must be ten times as much mass in our galaxy than has been found in the stars. So it is thought there must be a dark matter halo accounting for the missing 90%. I venture to suppose that it may be more reasonable to look for that mass within the stars themselves instead of under rugs.
> Your "venture to suppose" is not at all scientific. Evidence rules, and the evidence concerning the masses of individual stars has been determined beyond reproach, but since you have never actually studied the subject matter you remain clueless as to how all of this works.
>
> Reason is something about which you are unfamiliar. There is an answer to all of this "dark matter" and "dark energy" stuff, but currently it remain mysterious. This is not a big surprise. it will not be you (or Dick) who solves the problem, but the scientific community will eventually tweak the current theories to make the cuffs match the collars... and that is how science works. Make observations and tweak the theory to match the observations.. This will eventually sharpen the theory and make everyone happy.
>
> Ain't science wonderful?
A dark matter halo is a fairy tale because they haven't a clue.

On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 8:29:26 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 6:45:30 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 5:56:07 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.
> >
> > > The accepted view is that the galactic rotation curve proves there must be ten times as much mass in our galaxy than has been found in the stars.. So it is thought there must be a dark matter halo accounting for the missing 90%. I venture to suppose that it may be more reasonable to look for that mass within the stars themselves instead of under rugs.

> > Your "venture to suppose" is not at all scientific. Evidence rules, and the evidence concerning the masses of individual stars has been determined beyond reproach, but since you have never actually studied the subject matter you remain clueless as to how all of this works.
> >
> > Reason is something about which you are unfamiliar. There is an answer to all of this "dark matter" and "dark energy" stuff, but currently it remain mysterious. This is not a big surprise. it will not be you (or Dick) who solves the problem, but the scientific community will eventually tweak the current theories to make the cuffs match the collars... and that is how science works. Make observations and tweak the theory to match the observations. This will eventually sharpen the theory and make everyone happy.

> > Ain't science wonderful?

> A dark matter halo is a fairy tale because they haven't a clue.

A dark matter halo is just another tweak to the model and the jury is still out about this. JUST A MODEL. If you think it is a fairly tale I would surely like to see your evidence. You would be the first person in the world to do so, and would undoubtedly win a Nobel for it. All you need is evidence since your imagination is worthless. Good luck!

I thought you said you were done with me, Larry! Yet another fantasy of yours, I suppose.

It is YOU, Larry, who hasn't a clue, not the scientists.

On Thursday, 30 November 2023 at 03:45:30 UTC+1, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 5:56:07 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.
>
> > The accepted view is that the galactic rotation curve proves there must be ten times as much mass in our galaxy than has been found in the stars. So it is thought there must be a dark matter halo accounting for the missing 90%. I venture to suppose that it may be more reasonable to look for that mass within the stars themselves instead of under rugs.
> Your "venture to suppose" is not at all scientific. Evidence rules

Come on , poor trash. Evidence can only make
fanatic doggies like you barking more fiercely.