Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!newsfeed.bofh.team!paganini.bofh.team!not-for-mail From: The Starmaker Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: Galaxies don't fly apart because their entire frame is rotating Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2024 23:04:35 -0700 Organization: To protect and to server Message-ID: <6610E5F3.76A1@ix.netcom.com> References: <3%vNN.18429568$ee1.7376856@fx16.ams4> Reply-To: starmaker@ix.netcom.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Info: paganini.bofh.team; logging-data="2807909"; posting-host="nLYg9UBeoMWa070gP9wQcw.user.paganini.bofh.team"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@bofh.team"; posting-account="9dIQLXBM7WM9KzA+yjdR4A"; X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.3 X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 240405-12, 04/05/2024), Outbound message X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (WinNT; U) Xref: csiph.com sci.physics.relativity:652734 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?? -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.