Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections
Warning: mysqli::query(): Couldn't fetch mysqli in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\index.php on line 66
Article <l79nppFq93mU1@mid.individual.net>
Deutsch   English   Français   Italiano  
<l79nppFq93mU1@mid.individual.net>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article

Path: ...!news.nobody.at!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Galaxies don't fly apart because their entire frame is rotating
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2024 09:38:56 +0200
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <l79nppFq93mU1@mid.individual.net>
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>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net LUEDFPG+SdlxGvht1WSNOAHuZnWK9Vt0AOsDyWr6ytl3QKtLG4
Cancel-Lock: sha1:w6dCq/fc+ISB+4F3HUXpZkemXqg= sha256:rOr1WymuGiJU/ViCrtK30T0EYiuRjKKkT6iUzwN6I14=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
In-Reply-To: <uub83k$1k226$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 2207

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.

Interesting are phenomenons which exist, whether they are visible or not.

E.g. a ship on the other side of the planet cannot be seen from here or 
the other side of the Moon.

But both do exist.

Visibility, usefulness or other categories of this kind, which reflect a 
connection to the observer, are irrelevant in physics.

They are important for you, however, but you are not important for physics.


TH