Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!pasdenom.info!from-devjntp
Message-ID: <Hth0_uEjY9-2dTDy92yn7g6IPl4@jntp>
JNTP-Route: news2.nemoweb.net
JNTP-DataType: Article
Subject: Re: Galaxies don't fly apart because their entire frame is rotating
References: <l6kfnuFjqknU1@mid.individual.net> <l6ptnhFee5eU1@mid.individual.net> <uu9je5$14o7k$1@dont-email.me>
 <l6se1pFpvelU1@mid.individual.net> <uub83k$1k226$1@dont-email.me> <l79nppFq93mU1@mid.individual.net>
 <uuoc92$191kf$1@dont-email.me> <l7k68tFdc15U1@mid.individual.net> <uv4hhn$gafg$6@dont-email.me>
 <l7mkn3Fo5f0U1@mid.individual.net>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
JNTP-HashClient: uNJgxSEUCzJdVZO5vxODcFYovgc
JNTP-ThreadID: 3pqdnTzZ85-dG2X4nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@giganews.com
JNTP-Uri: http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=Hth0_uEjY9-2dTDy92yn7g6IPl4@jntp
User-Agent: Nemo/0.999a
JNTP-OriginServer: news2.nemoweb.net
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 24 10:12:45 +0000
Organization: Nemoweb
JNTP-Browser: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/115.0
Injection-Info: news2.nemoweb.net; posting-host="76f1a39d094f7b4c073b3891075c93d999df9a42"; logging-data="2024-04-10T10:12:45Z/8811944"; posting-account="190@news2.nemoweb.net"; mail-complaints-to="julien.arlandis@gmail.com"
JNTP-ProtocolVersion: 0.21.1
JNTP-Server: PhpNemoServer/0.94.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-JNTP-JsonNewsGateway: 0.96
From: Python <python@org.invalid>
Bytes: 4157
Lines: 78

Le 10/04/2024 à 07:00, Thomas Heger a écrit :
> Am Mittwoch000010, 10.04.2024 um 01:04 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson:
>> On 4/8/2024 11:47 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am 05.04.2024 um 10:20 schrieb Mikko:
>>>
>>>>>>> In this case a vortex is actually a structure of significant depth,
>>>>>>> where stars are stacked in distance, hence also 'stacked in time' (in
>>>>>>> the image).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why would you want to explain someting that is never seen?
>>>>>
>>>>> Theoretical physics does not require visibility.
>>>>
>>>> Study of phantasies is not physics of any kind.
>>>>
>>>>> Interesting are phenomenons which exist, whether they are visible or 
>>>>> not.
>>>>
>>>> They are interesting only if they are observed to exist or there is
>>>> a good reason to expect that they can be observed.
>>>>
>>>>> E.g. a ship on the other side of the planet cannot be seen from here
>>>>> or the other side of the Moon.
>>>>
>>>> Both can be seen.
>>>>
>>>>> But both do exist.
>>>>>
>>>>> Visibility, usefulness or other categories of this kind, which reflect
>>>>> a connection to the observer, are irrelevant in physics.
>>>>
>>>> Everything in physics has a connection to an observer.
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is a totally idiotic requirement.
>>>
>>> Many things cannot be seen, even if they are real.
>>>
>>> Seeing is limited to light of a very small frequency band, limited to 
>>> direct visibility and also limited by scale, time of existence and 
>>> illumination.
>>>
>>> We also need somebody to watch.
>>>
>>> But many things real do not fall into these categories.
>>>
>>>
>>> E.g. very short lived particles are very hard to see.
>>>
>>> Also invisible are radiowaves, the inside of planet Earth or of black 
>>> holes.
>>>
>>> But would you like to shuffel all things under the rug, which are hard 
>>> to see?
>>>
>> 
>> Also, perhaps our current state of the art technology wrt observing the 
>> universe from our little earth is damn near pre embryonic wrt the grand 
>> scheme of things... ;^)
>> 
> 
> Usual observations from our perspective of the universe would require to 
> remove the effects of the delay, which is caused by the finite speed of 
> light.
> 
> But this is not done.

Of course it is done!!!

You have definitely never read any paper about astronomy, or the history
of astronomy. As a matter of fact one of the main issue in astronomy is
to determine the distance of objects as precisely as possible.

Thomas, why are you constantly making up stuff of that kind? Is it malice
or stupidity?

Both?