JWT proves NO big bang. Einstein was full of crap just as DIngle and Essen said.

[Foos Research]

On second thought, I've already enough insulting emails for a book, not to mention dozens of phone calls. Knock yourselves out, but unless the subject field is changed to FOOS RESEARCH I won't get around to reading them. Some of them are likely various defenses of Einstein, but I've seen those hundreds of times the last fifty years, and repeating them doesn't fly. Close inspection of the examples I've covered on the web site plainly show scientific fraud and disprove any connection between verifiable answers and so called relativity. Einstein defended his outlandish ideas this way: "Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind." That works out great for poetry and clever fakery, but pure science does not follow from the free creation of human minds. In real science, physical concepts consist of mathematically precise expressions derived from and bound to physical reality. For example, if the JWT disproves the Big Bang as I predicted it must, it also demands Einstein's ideas be discarded in favor of a concept derived from observable facts and not the free form creations of human minds. There can be only one such concept, and that I offer for the consumption of prepared minds should any of you have one.

Recall how Einstein's quackery doomed physics. In 1972 I called out Professor Denny Lee on the first two principles of relativity contradicting each other, the result being the famous Twin Paradox. Caught in a trap, Lee quickly covered up by explaining the effect in advanced circles as due to acceleration and deceleration, not uniform motion. This absurdity was also the crux of Dingle's objections, but the media and science community upheld Einstein with exceptions like Essen who aptly and flatly called it a swindle. At one point Einstein himself admitted the effect was due to acceleration / deceleration, but the point was overlooked. The original bungle is still embedded in the lore and core of modern cosmology. It is nonsense, of course. The Lorentz formulas for contraction and time constriction as a function of uniform velocity were awkward contrivances in search of a non existent ether. Einstein popularized these bogus notions, but clock speed and meter length are precise functions of acceleration and deceleration only (or the equivalent force of gravity). The experimental data were wrongly twisted to further the myth of Einstein, not real science.

All of these things are well explained within the https://foosresearch.com web site. The author page explains my interest following Denny Lee's 1972 class. Foos Research focuses on the obvious fraud in the Pound-Rebka experiment and finishes by explaining exactly what the data really tell us. Einstein's inference is that clock speed decreases at lower potential energies because wavelength decreases, the fractional change for either being (delta V) / c. By definition, of course, the change in the length of a meter changes as well. If the length of a meter changes, but the meter remains a meter in every other measurable way, then the only explanation for changes in either length or clock speed necessitates the existence of truly empty space, not the space between physical objects, but the expansion of space itself. These aren't my ideas, nor are they theories, but simple facts of observation and definition. No big bang, no internally expanding universe. The starlight deflection problem was tackled out of boredom, but it turns out to be the clearest example of fraud contrasted with the only correct solution provided by the simplest example of vector addition, 0.189 arc seconds. https://foosresearch.com/starlight.html. Eureka.

[Dono.]

On Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 1:46:39 AM UTC-7, cusanus...@gmail.com wrote:
> .... but I've seen those hundreds of times the last fifty years,

So, you have been insane for at least 50 years. Got it.

[lostgold]

he also posted this super godly unknow website named https://foosresearch.com/ that for all i know is just saying fake news

[JanPB]

On Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 1:46:39 AM UTC-7, cusanus...@gmail.com wrote:

> On second thought, [...]

You must be new. We debated the existence of the Big Bang on
this NG in the 1990s already and many more times since.

You seem not to know how science works and merely use the
latest results as an excuse to feed some infantile personal
Einstein complex.

In the real world OTOH, even obsolete theories stay if they are
good within certain useful domains: Newtonian mechanics never
went away despite being already *doubly* obsoleted (by
relativity and quantum mechanics), Maxwell's electrodynamics
never went away despite quantum field theory.

And likewise Einstein's theories will never go away, no mater
future developments.

So fix your Einstein monomania, otherwise you'll just continue
on your never ending frustration.

--
Jan

[patdolan]

Ptolemy's theory of an Earth-centric universe died, Jan, old boy. So did Aristotle's theory of impetus. Albeit they were both lingering deaths, taking a thousand years. Einstein's and Darwin's theories are on the same trajectory--with more first time exposures to each resulting in the choice to not accept either. That's not to say they have a replacement theory for each; these new minds, when armed with fair criticisms of each, simply know falsity when they hear it.

[JanPB]

On Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 9:52:53 PM UTC+2, patdolan wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 12:32:25 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 1:46:39 AM UTC-7, cusanus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On second thought, [...]
> >
> > You must be new. We debated the existence of the Big Bang on
> > this NG in the 1990s already and many more times since.
> >
> > You seem not to know how science works and merely use the
> > latest results as an excuse to feed some infantile personal
> > Einstein complex.
> >
> > In the real world OTOH, even obsolete theories stay if they are
> > good within certain useful domains: Newtonian mechanics never
> > went away despite being already *doubly* obsoleted (by
> > relativity and quantum mechanics), Maxwell's electrodynamics
> > never went away despite quantum field theory.
> >
> > And likewise Einstein's theories will never go away, no mater
> > future developments.
> >
> > So fix your Einstein monomania, otherwise you'll just continue
> > on your never ending frustration.
> >
> > --
> > Jan
> Ptolemy's theory of an Earth-centric universe died, Jan, old boy.

Have you even read what I wrote? I stated a fact (facts are not
debatable BTW). Quote:

>> Newtonian mechanics never
> > went away despite being already *doubly* obsoleted (by
> > relativity and quantum mechanics), Maxwell's electrodynamics
> > never went away despite quantum field theory.

And then I extrapolated from the above, like so:

> > And likewise Einstein's theories will never go away, no mater
> > future developments.

--
Jan

[Dono.]

Having wet dreams again, Pattycakes?

[Maciej Wozniak]

And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden by your
bunch of idiots GPS and TAI will never stop measuring
t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Of course, you extrapolated the cases you liked,
ignoring the cases you didn't. Nothing else can
be expected from a fanatic idiot.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

503

> So fix your Einstein monomania, otherwise you'll just continue
> on your never ending frustration.

--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

[J. J. Lodder]

patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:

> On Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 12:32:25 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 1:46:39 AM UTC-7, cusanus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On second thought, [...]
> >
> > You must be new. We debated the existence of the Big Bang on
> > this NG in the 1990s already and many more times since.
> >
> > You seem not to know how science works and merely use the
> > latest results as an excuse to feed some infantile personal
> > Einstein complex.
> >
> > In the real world OTOH, even obsolete theories stay if they are
> > good within certain useful domains: Newtonian mechanics never
> > went away despite being already *doubly* obsoleted (by
> > relativity and quantum mechanics), Maxwell's electrodynamics
> > never went away despite quantum field theory.
> >
> > And likewise Einstein's theories will never go away, no mater
> > future developments.
> >
> > So fix your Einstein monomania, otherwise you'll just continue
> > on your never ending frustration.
> >
> > --
> > Jan
> Ptolemy's theory of an Earth-centric universe died, Jan, old boy.

Not really.
It is still quite convenient when discussing satellite motions,
for the GPS system for example, or for pointing your satellite dish,

Jan

[Maciej Wozniak]

:)))))) ECI is not Ptolemy's, poor idiot,

[J. J. Lodder]

Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, 5 October 2022 at 14:00:39 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 12:32:25 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:

> > > > On Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 1:46:39 AM UTC-7, cusanus...@gmail.com:

> > > > > On second thought, [...]
> > > >
> > > > You must be new. We debated the existence of the Big Bang on
> > > > this NG in the 1990s already and many more times since.
> > > >
> > > > You seem not to know how science works and merely use the
> > > > latest results as an excuse to feed some infantile personal
> > > > Einstein complex.
> > > >
> > > > In the real world OTOH, even obsolete theories stay if they are
> > > > good within certain useful domains: Newtonian mechanics never
> > > > went away despite being already *doubly* obsoleted (by
> > > > relativity and quantum mechanics), Maxwell's electrodynamics
> > > > never went away despite quantum field theory.
> > > >
> > > > And likewise Einstein's theories will never go away, no mater
> > > > future developments.
> > > >
> > > > So fix your Einstein monomania, otherwise you'll just continue
> > > > on your never ending frustration.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Jan
> > > Ptolemy's theory of an Earth-centric universe died, Jan, old boy.
> > Not really.
> > It is still quite convenient when discussing satellite motions,
> > for the GPS system for example, or for pointing your satellite dish,
>
> :)))))) ECI is not Ptolemy's, poor idiot,

Who said so?
The I stands for Inertial, so non-rotating. (wrt to the fixed stars)
Ptolemy would have wanted ECEF, that is "Earth-Centered, Earth-Fixed",
so co-rotating with the surface.

Both systems have their uses, in the sub-lunarian sphere,

Jan

[Maciej Wozniak]

I did.

> The I stands for Inertial, so non-rotating. (wrt to the fixed stars)
> Ptolemy would have wanted ECEF, that is "Earth-Centered, Earth-Fixed",
> so co-rotating with the surface.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model

[JanPB]

On Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 12:52:53 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 12:32:25 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 1:46:39 AM UTC-7, cusanus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On second thought, [...]
> >
> > You must be new. We debated the existence of the Big Bang on
> > this NG in the 1990s already and many more times since.
> >
> > You seem not to know how science works and merely use the
> > latest results as an excuse to feed some infantile personal
> > Einstein complex.
> >
> > In the real world OTOH, even obsolete theories stay if they are
> > good within certain useful domains: Newtonian mechanics never
> > went away despite being already *doubly* obsoleted (by
> > relativity and quantum mechanics), Maxwell's electrodynamics
> > never went away despite quantum field theory.
> >
> > And likewise Einstein's theories will never go away, no mater
> > future developments.
> >
> > So fix your Einstein monomania, otherwise you'll just continue
> > on your never ending frustration.
> >
> > --
> > Jan
> Ptolemy's theory of an Earth-centric universe died, Jan, old boy.

Actually, it didn't. It's just less convenient: in modern language this
theory uses Fourier expansions of the orbits instead of the much
more convenient analyses of later times.

> So did Aristotle's theory of impetus. Albeit they were both lingering deaths, taking a thousand years. Einstein's and Darwin's theories are on the same trajectory--

I don't know about Aristotle or Darwin(*) but Einstein's relativity
will never go away for the same reasons Newton's and
Maxwell's theories will never go away.

(*)There are some interesting questions re. Darwin based on data
not available to Darwin (i.e. the DNA). Don't know the details.

--
Jan

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Thursday, 6 October 2022 at 17:18:21 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:

> I don't know about Aristotle or Darwin(*) but Einstein's relativity
> will never go away for the same reasons Newton's and
> Maxwell's theories will never go away.

Jan is a guru! He is like Bach! He can never be mistaken,
like ordinary mortal worms sometimes are.

[J. J. Lodder]

JanPB <fil...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 12:52:53 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 12:32:25 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:

> > > On Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 1:46:39 AM UTC-7, cusanus...@gmail.com:

Darwin bashing should be taken to talk.origins,
(some great competence there)

Jan