Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #652765
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics |
| Subject | Re: Galaxies don't fly apart because their entire frame is rotating |
| Date | 2024-04-07 12:43 -0700 |
| Organization | To protect and to server |
| Message-ID | <6612F767.E0A@ix.netcom.com> (permalink) |
| References | (9 earlier) <v6OcnaRXv6tiLI37nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@giganews.com> <6610E5F3.76A1@ix.netcom.com> <ZmydnUzaeL5W8oz7nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com> <66119DB3.4CC4@ix.netcom.com> <IqGcndYuwpzDLIz7nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@giganews.com> |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
Ross Finlayson wrote: > > 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, .... Godwin is a fraud, his fake law is a fraud. And he's a Democrat! and his wife is a Chink. The law is, there is no law. People with the word "God" in their name tend to think...they are God! I heard girls from Cambodia are hot. How old is his wife...13? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQOuoUaSxKQ -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Re: Galaxies don't fly apart because their entire frame is rotating Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-03-28 07:12 +0100
Re: Galaxies don't fly apart because their entire frame is rotating Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2024-03-28 02:29 -0400
Re: Galaxies don't fly apart because their entire frame is rotating Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-03-28 21:38 -0700
Re: Galaxies don't fly apart because their entire frame is rotating Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-03-29 15:54 -0700
Re: Galaxies don't fly apart because their entire frame is rotating Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-03-29 08:51 +0100
Re: Galaxies don't fly apart because their entire frame is rotating "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-03-29 10:41 +0100
Re: Galaxies don't fly apart because their entire frame is rotating Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-03-29 11:33 +0100
Re: Galaxies don't fly apart because their entire frame is rotating Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-03-30 08:41 +0100
Re: Galaxies don't fly apart because their entire frame is rotating Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2024-03-30 12:35 +0000
Re: Galaxies don't fly apart because their entire frame is rotating Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-03-30 09:39 -0700
Re: Galaxies don't fly apart because their entire frame is rotating Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-03-30 18:50 +0100
Re: Galaxies don't fly apart because their entire frame is rotating Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-03-31 08:32 +0200
Re: Galaxies don't fly apart because their entire frame is rotating Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-03-31 11:49 +0300
Re: Galaxies don't fly apart because their entire frame is rotating Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-03-31 13:42 -0700
Re: Galaxies don't fly apart because their entire frame is rotating Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-04-05 09:38 +0200
Re: Galaxies don't fly apart because their entire frame is rotating Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-05 11:20 +0300
Re: Galaxies don't fly apart because their entire frame is rotating Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-05 19:22 -0700
Re: Galaxies don't fly apart because their entire frame is rotating The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-05 23:04 -0700
Re: Galaxies don't fly apart because their entire frame is rotating Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-06 08:52 -0700
Re: Galaxies don't fly apart because their entire frame is rotating The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-06 12:08 -0700
Re: Galaxies don't fly apart because their entire frame is rotating Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-06 13:32 -0700
Re: Galaxies don't fly apart because their entire frame is rotating The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-07 12:43 -0700
Re: Galaxies don't fly apart because their entire frame is rotating The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-07 19:35 -0700
Re: Galaxies don't fly apart because their entire frame is rotating Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> - 2024-04-08 10:29 +0200
Re: Galaxies don't fly apart because their entire frame is rotating Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-09 21:37 -0700
Re: Galaxies don't fly apart because their entire frame is rotating Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-04-09 08:47 +0200
Re: Galaxies don't fly apart because their entire frame is rotating Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-04-09 09:47 +0200
Re: Galaxies don't fly apart because their entire frame is rotating Kareem Pérez Romà <kka@eepezerpr.es> - 2024-04-09 22:46 +0000
Re: Galaxies don't fly apart because their entire frame is rotating "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-04-09 16:04 -0700
Re: Galaxies don't fly apart because their entire frame is rotating The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-09 21:14 -0700
Re: Galaxies don't fly apart because their entire frame is rotating "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-04-09 22:02 -0700
Re: Galaxies don't fly apart because their entire frame is rotating Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-04-10 07:00 +0200
Re: Galaxies don't fly apart because their entire frame is rotating Python <python@org.invalid> - 2024-04-10 10:12 +0000
Re: Galaxies don't fly apart because their entire frame is rotating nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-04-10 15:30 +0200
Re: Galaxies don't fly apart because their entire frame is rotating Python <python@org.invalid> - 2024-04-11 17:10 +0000
Re: Galaxies don't fly apart because their entire frame is rotating Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-04-11 21:03 +0200
Re: Galaxies don't fly apart because their entire frame is rotating Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-04-11 21:06 +0000
Re: Galaxies don't fly apart because their entire frame is rotating Python <python@org.invalid> - 2024-04-11 21:55 +0000
Re: Galaxies don't fly apart because their entire frame is rotating Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-04-11 22:14 +0000
Re: Galaxies don't fly apart because their entire frame is rotating Python <python@org.invalid> - 2024-04-11 22:28 +0000
Re: Galaxies don't fly apart because their entire frame is rotating Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-04-12 06:29 +0200
Re: Galaxies don't fly apart because their entire frame is rotating Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-04-11 10:57 +0200
Re: Galaxies don't fly apart because their entire frame is rotating Python <python@org.invalid> - 2024-04-11 11:08 +0000
Re: Galaxies don't fly apart because their entire frame is rotating Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-04-11 18:13 +0200
Re: Galaxies don't fly apart because their entire frame is rotating Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-04-12 07:45 +0200
Re: Galaxies don't fly apart because their entire frame is rotating Python <python@org.invalid> - 2024-04-12 07:27 +0000
Re: Galaxies don't fly apart because their entire frame is rotating "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-04-12 13:50 -0700
Re: Galaxies don't fly apart because their entire frame is rotating "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-04-12 13:52 -0700
Re: Galaxies don't fly apart because their entire frame is rotating The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-13 11:09 -0700
Re: Galaxies don't fly apart because their entire frame is rotating Sherman De la cruz <rndeu@rrzzzcs.es> - 2024-04-14 00:03 +0000
Re: Galaxies don't fly apart because their entire frame is rotating Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-04-13 06:42 +0000
Re: Galaxies don't fly apart because their entire frame is rotating Freddie Kalmár <rerie@fk.hu> - 2024-04-13 15:10 +0000
Re: Galaxies don't fly apart because their entire frame is rotating Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-13 08:32 -0700
Re: Galaxies don't fly apart because their entire frame is rotating Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2024-03-30 11:57 -0400
Re: Galaxies don't fly apart because their entire frame is rotating The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-03-30 09:49 -0700
Re: Galaxies don't fly apart because their entire frame is rotating Leandro Somogyi Lévai <er@ammalo.hu> - 2024-03-31 10:32 +0000
csiph-web