| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<IqGcndYuwpzDLIz7nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@giganews.com> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr3.iad1.usenetexpress.com!69.80.99.27.MISMATCH!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: 6814 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, ....