| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<uub83k$1k226$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: Galaxies don't fly apart because their entire frame is rotating Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2024 11:49:56 +0300 Organization: - Lines: 57 Message-ID: <uub83k$1k226$1@dont-email.me> References: <l6kfnuFjqknU1@mid.individual.net> <l6n9udF2ac2U1@mid.individual.net> <3%vNN.18429568$ee1.7376856@fx16.ams4> <l6ptnhFee5eU1@mid.individual.net> <uu9je5$14o7k$1@dont-email.me> <l6se1pFpvelU1@mid.individual.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2024 08:49:56 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9512f205df1ed007a04f4b5f52c0d4cb"; logging-data="1706054"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19RbbrlvsAI1MZ/de1ghDDo" User-Agent: Unison/2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:Bz/CRSPCmbV3GlJwoRzp4rXWpOw= Bytes: 3327 On 2024-03-31 06:32:40 +0000, Thomas Heger said: > Am 30.03.2024 um 18:50 schrieb Python: >> Le 30/03/2024 à 08:41, Thomas Heger a écrit : >> ... >>> Now cosmologists have a wellknown habit to ignore the delay caused by >>> the finite speed of light, hence tend to take the observed image for >>> real and make no attempts to compensate the delay. >> >> "wellknown"? Quite the opposite. This is something you made up (as >> usual). >> >> Haven't you noticed the number of papers proposing explanations for >> the observation of big galaxies *older* than it was supposedly possible? >> They are visible in images obtained *now* by spatial telescopes. >> >>> This is actually, what I had criticised in Einstein's 'On the >>> electrodynamics of moving bodies' several times, too, because Einstein >>> didn't even mention the delay and made not effort to eliminate its >>> effects. >> >> This is wrong. He did actually that in part I.1 in 1905 article as >> it as been *shown* to you in details numerous times (it is basically >> obvious for any competent reader of the paper, only you failed to >> understand that). >> >>> In cosmology the problem is much more obvious, but cosmologists make >>> not attempts to compensate this effect, neither. >> >> This is also wrong. >> >> What the hell made you think such an idiotic thing? Cosmologists not >> taking in account the finite light propagation speed? Seriously, you >> have a cognitive problem of some kind. >> >>> Instead they are looking for the cause of rotation of the vortex >>> structure (what is rather silly). >> >> 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? -- Mikko