Path: Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2024 20:32:29 +0000
Subject: Re: Galaxies don't fly apart because their entire frame is rotating
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics
References: <l6kfnuFjqknU1@mid.individual.net>
 <l6n9udF2ac2U1@mid.individual.net> <3%vNN.18429568$ee1.7376856@fx16.ams4>
 <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>
 <v6OcnaRXv6tiLI37nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@giganews.com> <6610E5F3.76A1@ix.netcom.com>
 <ZmydnUzaeL5W8oz7nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com> <66119DB3.4CC4@ix.netcom.com>
From: Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2024 13:32:37 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <66119DB3.4CC4@ix.netcom.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <IqGcndYuwpzDLIz7nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 120
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-5YX8yHf5AMirHfJRBM/MkvnSQgZpStECyQqEod2lSdMVuLMWvMUNEDnNakvoSI438Nt0hbGOxpmi7Ag!MP3RGsQsjrBYinncm0U1qYiFAH18eIUDTLgKa+sGWzxUCub67MhYfSPffkkX4+PuUYa0z7LWySuK
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 6559

On 04/06/2024 12:08 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>
>> On 04/05/2024 11:04 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 04/05/2024 01:20 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-04-05 07:38:56 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 31.03.2024 um 10:49 schrieb Mikko:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They noticed that the rotational speed of stars in most galaxies
>>>>>>>>> cannot be explained by gravitation if you only take into account
>>>>>>>>> the mass of the visible part of them. There is nothing silly in
>>>>>>>>> trying to sort that out.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I try to explain rotating galaxy vortices by foreground rotation of
>>>>>>>> the frame of reference of the observer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's the philosophy of science that falsifiability requires this
>>>> sort of observable physically, yes.
>>>>
>>>> This then involves the observation, sampling, measurement: "effects",
>>>> particularly with regards to where they do and don't interfere with
>>>> the sampling, or, active and passive sampling, or where the "effects"
>>>> actually involve super-classical effects like quantum effects and
>>>> the notion of the pilot wave, or Bohm - de Broglie and real wave
>>>> collapse above and about the stochastic interpretation.
>>>>
>>>> So, there's a notion that the senses stop a the sensory, the
>>>> phenomenological, while reason and its attachments actually
>>>> begin in the noumenal, about the noumena and the noumenon.
>>>> Where do they meet? The idea is that humans and other reasoners
>>>> have an object sense, a word sense, a number sense, a time sense,
>>>> and a sense of the continuum, connecting the phenomenological and
>>>> the noumenol, with regards to observables.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, no-one's ever seen an "atom".
>>>
>>> What about Erwin Muller? isn't he der furst tu see an atom??
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> It's kind of like one time sometime asked Einstein, "are atoms real?",
>> and he said something like, "yeah, you know, there are reasons why
>> it's really just a concession to the notion that in the theory
>> there's mathematics and the vanishing and infinitesimal, and of
>> course it relates to all the antique and historical theories of
>> the atomism or what we call Democritan atomism, and, chemistry
>> arrives at stoichiometry or perfect proportions with regards to
>> quantities of masses of chemical elements, then what we have is
>> electron physics, about specifically the discreteness of the
>> energies, which we sort of need because otherwise mathematics
>> runs over, so we got electron physics, then there's Avogadro's
>> number, or about 9.022*10^23 many atoms per mole, and we got
>> stuff going on about Angstroms five above and Planck five below,
>> the orders of magnitude of the size of these theoretical particles,
>> yet it's still just an conceit to the theory of particles, and
>> then though we know there's particle/wave duality, so on the
>> one hand it's just to give people the idea that there are simple
>> finite quantities, even in the atomic scale, yet otherwise it's
>> still a conceit, so, ..., yeah, sure, atoms are real".
>>
>> It might help if you know that NIST CODATA prints a table of
>> the fundamental physical constants, and, every few years
>> they've gotten smaller, not just more precise yet smaller,
>> it's called "running constants", and helps explain how a
>> theory of atomism and discrete particles works just great,
>> when really it's a continuum mechanics.
>
>
> Translation: Erwin Muller wasn't a Jewish scientist, so he's not suppose
> to be known for seeing the atom.
>
>
> dat explains Why 6 million jewish people were subject to genocide...
>
> besides being a stone in everyones shoe.
>
>
>
>
>
>

One does not simply _invoke_ Godwin's law, ....