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,sci.physics Subject: Re: Galaxies don't fly apart because their entire frame is rotating Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2024 12:08:35 -0700 Organization: To protect and to server Message-ID: <66119DB3.4CC4@ix.netcom.com> References: <3%vNN.18429568$ee1.7376856@fx16.ams4> <6610E5F3.76A1@ix.netcom.com> 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="2894434"; 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: Avast (VPS 240406-2, 04/06/2024), Outbound message X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (WinNT; U) X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Xref: csiph.com sci.physics.relativity:652747 sci.physics:886401 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.