Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #886401

Re: Galaxies don't fly apart because their entire frame is rotating

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

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.






-- 
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 | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

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

csiph-web