Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr1.iad1.usenetexpress.com!69.80.99.27.MISMATCH!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 22:54:50 +0000
Subject: Re: Galaxies don't fly apart because their entire frame is rotating
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
References: <3pqdnTzZ85-dG2X4nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@giganews.com> <l6kfnuFjqknU1@mid.individual.net> <uu32p3$3ddn0$2@dont-email.me> <4OmcnbY1pLhK2Jv7nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 15:54:54 -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: <4OmcnbY1pLhK2Jv7nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <x9CdnSkCitMn25r7nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 100
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-6QyGNlP8zCJz9ulApVSjBP2t6BzRHxUYIlTR0XGGm2Kfu3PGhu0t25jYClZW15MxyYeOUCCcN8/1AqW!VTKYRhKdOjpXRdUiYlPc4UFFJTKyGZDl45oU90TVEarsWN9kjFycn2YB1zeW67mJa2FLkUM/rx8L!Yg==
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: 5907

On 03/28/2024 09:38 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 03/27/2024 11:29 PM, Volney wrote:
>> On 3/28/2024 2:12 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am 18.03.2024 um 19:20 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
>>>>
>>>> A hypothesis ....
>>>>
>>>> ... filling the space that is the agglomeration of what was their jet.
>>>>
>>>> So, are there gravitic singularities in the middle of galaxies?
>>>> Maybe not.
>>>>
>>>> Are there gravitic filaments holding it all together?  Maybe not.
>>>>
>>>
>>> My personal view on this problem:
>>>
>>> galaxies are not held together by gravity and there is no need for
>>> gravity, because the galaxies are not rotating in their own frame of
>>> reference.
>>>
>>> It is OUR !!! impression from a remote position, that galaxies rotate.
>>>
>>> But seen from a comoving position from within that galaxy, the
>>> galaxies (of course) don't rotate.
>>>
>> Rotation is absolute. If a galaxy is rotating, that it is rotating can
>> be detected either from within or without the galaxy.
>
> I suppose that's Lambda Cold CDM, about 0.85,
> up from 0.5, going up to .9, .95?
>
> Holding it together, the more the sky survey
> maps, up to Lambda 1.0?
>
> It's a great explanation because it keeps the data all
> added up, but it sort of results a universe full of
> stuff that can't be shown to exist, that by definition,
> doesn't exist.
>
> It's a great explanation unless you think that it sort
> of requires a great new explanation of the great old explanation.
>
> It really doesn't change much at all to make it so that
> rotating frames are independent, it doesn't much change
> classical mechanics and it doesn't much change relativistic
> dynamics, the theories. It can change a lot usual blind
> followers mistaken extrapolations, but, considering that
> their entire theory is growing to be approximately 100%
> "doesn't exist", don't you think it's sort of, un-scientific?
>
> In the old days instead of dark matter we had curved or
> warped space-time. Well, the sky survey came up with
> that the universe is pretty definitely isotropic, so
> what was invented instead of space being warped everywhere,
> was a theory of invisible mass, dark matter, an imaginary material.
>
> So anyways these days "it's definitely that the galaxies
> aren't flying apart, which without these blind peoples'
> extra perceived blindness, would just be a yawning gulf
> demanding explanation". Like independent rotating frames.
>
>
> Pretty much though it starts with that classical mechanics
> needs a sort of re-combination, like independent rotating frames.
>
> I.e., classical mechanics much simpler than usual solar
> systems and galaxies and other large, though sparse, and
> rotating systems, has a thorough under-defined surrounds.
>
>

Here is a podcast, I have been talking about the classical mechanics,
and about the underdefined state of classical mechanics, and
getting notions like "classical walk integral" and
"dimensional/dimensionless resonator/alternator",
in a mathematical and dimensional analysis.

Moment and Motion: order and direction

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axmvT_VRBns&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F4eHy5vT61UYFR7_BIhwcOY&index=33


Acceleration, infinity, language of numbers, orders, infinity and the
mind, infinity and infinitesimals, real analytical character and
measure, angle-making and turn-making, rotating frame and rotational
frame, dimensional analysis, g-forces, g's and derivatives, units of
inertia, areal terms and path terms, space-frames and frame-spaces, the
non-linear and the un-linear, dimensional resonator, multi-pole moment,
order and direction, m/s and s/m, dimensionless terms, dimensional
alternator, kinematics, Galileo and Lorentz, path integral and walk
integral, rotation and path-following, operators and quantities, forward
units and turning units, definitions, inertia in motion, linear units,
unit force, quantum amplitudes, Stern-Gerlach, base states and
coordinate settings, quantum momentum, Stern-Gerlach apparatus, spin
one, beam splitting, van de Graaf generator, beam filtering,
polarization and phase, Stern-Gerlach type, improved Stern-Gerlach, wave
guide, cone angle, base state as continuous quantum state, dimensionless
resonator, kinetics and kinematics.