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

Groups > sci.physics > #592384 > unrolled thread

For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 16:33 -0500
    For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 14:45 -0700
      For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 15:06 -0700
        Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 17:21 -0500
      Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 17:09 -0500
        Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 08:33 -0700
          Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 10:42 -0500
      Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 15:13 -0700
      Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-08 19:12 -0400
        Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 03:48 -0700
          Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 07:21 -0500
            Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 05:55 -0700
              Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 08:06 -0500
            Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-09 18:05 -0400
              Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 17:20 -0500
              Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 10:53 -0700
    Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-08 19:05 -0400
      Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 07:44 -0500
        Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 06:02 -0700
          Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 08:09 -0500
            Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 06:16 -0700
              Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 08:45 -0500
                Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 07:13 -0700
                  Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 09:36 -0500
                    Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 07:45 -0700
                      Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 10:15 -0500
                        Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 08:21 -0700
                          Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 10:38 -0500
                            Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 10:45 -0500
                              Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 08:50 -0700
                                Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 10:58 -0500
                          Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-09 15:50 +0000
                            Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 11:00 -0500
                              Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 09:09 -0700
                                Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 11:17 -0500
                                Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-09 17:31 +0000
                                  Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 13:22 -0700
                              Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-09 18:14 -0400
                                Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 17:21 -0500
                                  Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 22:48 -0700
                Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-09 18:08 -0400
              Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-09 22:45 -0400
                Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 22:36 -0700
                  Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-10 16:32 -0400
                Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 07:55 -0500
                  Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 06:48 -0700
                    Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 06:54 -0700
                    Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 09:11 -0500
                      Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-10 17:05 -0400
                        Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 16:13 -0500
                          Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 16:14 -0500
                          Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 06:23 -0700
                            Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 09:30 -0500
                              Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 08:17 -0700
                                Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 08:21 -0700
                                  Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-11 16:24 +0000
                                Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 10:52 -0500
                                  Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 09:08 -0700
                                    Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 11:25 -0500
                                  Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 12:51 -0500
                                    Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 11:32 -0700
                                      Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 14:11 -0500
                                        Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 12:40 -0700
                                          Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 14:49 -0500
                                            Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 12:52 -0700
                                              Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 14:56 -0500
                                                Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 13:14 -0700
                                                  Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 15:46 -0500
                                                    Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 13:52 -0700
                                                      Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 16:31 -0500
                                                        Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 19:23 -0700
                                                          Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-12 04:18 +0000
                                                            Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 21:38 -0700
                                                              Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-12 15:20 +0000
                                                                Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 08:33 -0700
                                                                  Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-12 17:05 +0000
                                                          Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 07:21 -0500
                                                        Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 19:35 -0700
                                                          Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 19:40 -0700
                                                          Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 07:28 -0500
                                                            Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 06:52 -0700
                                                              Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 07:16 -0700
                                                              Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 10:32 -0500
                                    like a certain character in a cart00n noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 13:49 -0700
                                      Re: like a certain character in a cart00n noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 12:28 -0700
                                        Re: like a certain character in a cart00n john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 12:39 -0700
                  Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-10 16:35 -0400
                    Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 15:39 -0500
                      Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-10 16:50 -0400
                        Re: For John Sefton: Boyd Bushman and acting like a scientist Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 15:59 -0500

Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

#592797

Odd said
"
Isn't it interesting how quiet you get, John, when you realize that you 
believe certain things but you have no idea why? "

I get quiet sometimes because I have a
life, Odd.

You are asking me if I think
governments can be more devious
than any other bunch?
Power corrupts, Odd.
You read, but apparently not History.

Stop saying what I think or don't think.
I think you don't think.

PD/Odd: "There are TWO possibilities...."
Wtf?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#592801

On 8/11/2016 1:32 PM, john wrote:
> Odd said
> "
> Isn't it interesting how quiet you get, John, when you realize that you
> believe certain things but you have no idea why? "
>
> I get quiet sometimes because I have a
> life, Odd.
>
> You are asking me if I think
> governments can be more devious
> than any other bunch?

Not can be. Are. ARE they more devious than any other bunch?

> Power corrupts, Odd.

Yes, it can. Not everyone who has power is corrupt, but the grab for 
power can be corrupting.
This happens with night managers at pizza joints who abuse their 
employees, too.
So what is it about government that has you in a knot?
Why aren't you worried about the corrupting power of Warren Buffet?

> You read, but apparently not History.
>
> Stop saying what I think or don't think.
> I think you don't think.
>
> PD/Odd: "There are TWO possibilities...."
> Wtf?

If you're talking about dark matter, yes. This is how science works. You 
think this is bad and makes no sense?


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#592804

Odd said
"
> 
> PD/Odd: "There are TWO possibilities...." 
> Wtf? 

-If you're talking about dark matter, yes. This is how ---------science works. You 
-think this is bad and makes no sense? 

You need some training in Logic.
Maybe, don't just READ the book,
but have someone explain it, i.e. a teacher.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#592806

On 8/11/2016 2:40 PM, john wrote:
> Odd said
> "
>>
>> PD/Odd: "There are TWO possibilities...."
>> Wtf?
>
> -If you're talking about dark matter, yes. This is how ---------science works. You
> -think this is bad and makes no sense?
>
> You need some training in Logic.
> Maybe, don't just READ the book,
> but have someone explain it, i.e. a teacher.
>
>

John, I've taken logic from a teacher.
So what do you think is the logical problem here with there being two 
possibilities for the problem of galactic rotation curves? Use your best 
Logic Teacher skills to explain why this is a logical problem.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#592807

Sigh.
Only two, Odd?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#592809

On 8/11/2016 2:52 PM, john wrote:
> Sigh.
> Only two, Odd?
>

Here are the two possibilities again, John.
1. General relativity is a good description of nature, but we do not 
have the correct input data for the amount of mass in the galaxy to use 
in the theory.
2. We have the correct input data for the amount of mass in the galaxy, 
but general relativity is not a good description of nature and another 
theory is needed.

Now, please tell me a third possibility that is LOGICALLY DISTINCT from 
these two.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#592812

Odd
If gravity theory is wrong, how
would we have the correct input?
If gravity theory is right, how
would we not have the right input?
How about the actual case: gravity
theory is wrong, and therefore we
don't have the right input?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#592815

On 8/11/2016 3:14 PM, john wrote:
> Odd
> If gravity theory is wrong, how
> would we have the correct input?

Measuring mass does not involve invoking a particular theory.
Measuring mass involves counting stars and their categories, and knowing 
from stellar nuclear processes how much mass is involved with each 
category of stars. So it's like counting peas and having weighed peas of 
various sizes, and summing them up. Nothing about gravity is involved in 
that. Add to that the observations of non-stellar gas, by virtue of 
scattering and occlusion of light from behind the gas. Again, gravity is 
not used in counting up that mass.

Gravity theory says, if you know the amount of mass, then this theory 
tells you how the system should behave. If you don't know the amount of 
mass, then that's not a fault of the theory. The theory doesn't TELL you 
how much mass is there. You have to count that up and then plug it INTO 
the theory.

It's the same way with Newton's second law. F=ma. It says, if you know 
all the forces F, then this theory will tell you what the acceleration 
is. But Newton's 2nd law doesn't tell you what the forces are, you have 
to count that up on your own. And if you don't count up the forces 
right, then even using the correct Newton's law will give you the wrong 
answer, even though the theory is fine.

> If gravity theory is right, how
> would we not have the right input?
> How about the actual case: gravity
> theory is wrong, and therefore we
> don't have the right input?
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#592819

Odd
If gravity theory is wrong,
and stars are WAY more massive
than we think,
how does counting them help?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#592825

On 8/11/2016 3:52 PM, john wrote:
> Odd
> If gravity theory is wrong,
> and stars are WAY more massive

As I told you earlier, getting the mass of stars doesn't have to do with 
a theory of gravity. Their size and luminosity and color do. This comes 
from nuclear physics, not from gravity.

Now, it turns out that this nuclear physics estimate of star mass works 
extremely well and is consistent with the behavior of solar system 
bodies and observed star binaries by plugging those masses into the 
gravitational theory.

I'll go back to the analogy of Newton's 2nd law. Newton's second law 
doesn't tell you ANYTHING about what the forces are. The forces come 
from other theories. For example, Newton's second law doesn't tell you 
how big a force friction should be. A separate theory tells you surface 
friction is mu*N, where mu is a coefficient of friction that pertains to 
two substances, and N is the perpendicular contact force. If you leave 
this force out when trying to find the acceleration of a sliding body, 
F=ma will still be right, but you'll get the wrong answer for the 
acceleration a. But mu*N is verified by other tests, and plus, if you do 
include that in the theory, then you get the right answer for the 
acceleration. The likelihood of getting the right answer for the 
acceleration if you supposed that mu*N is wrong AND that F=ma is wrong, 
would be very very very remote. Please note that F=ma does NOT tell you 
anything about mu*N -- that comes from somewhere else.

Now in this story replace mu*N with nuclear-theory value of star masses. 
Replace F=ma with Einstein's GR. Now you have the situation with our 
solar system.

> than we think,
> how does counting them help?




-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#592866

Well, Odd,
In LeSage/Fatio gravity, there is shadowing.
When the bodies get extremely big, the
centers are no longer perceived; 
gravitationally they behave as if they are hollow, or
unnaturally gassy and light.
But, in actuality, they are rock and lava, etc.
So, I'm not totally convinced of the
sun mass measurements.
The Stars may be 100 times more massive than
you think. Boom; missing mass solved

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#592876

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> tarded:

>Well, Odd,
>In LeSage/Fatio gravity, there is shadowing.
>When the bodies get extremely big, the
>centers are no longer perceived; 
>gravitationally they behave as if they are hollow, or
>unnaturally gassy and light.
>But, in actuality, they are rock and lava, etc.
>So, I'm not totally convinced of the
>sun mass measurements.
>The Stars may be 100 times more massive than
>you think. Boom; missing mass solved

That right there shows one of the biggest flaws with LeSage gravity.
Imagine 3 bodies in a line A B C where B is one of your "extremely big"
bodies.  With LeSage gravity the presence of B will block the effect of A
on C (and vice versa) while with real gravity there is no blocking so A
acts on C whether or not B is there.  Also if B moves out of the way in
the LeSage gravity example, now A and C have full influence of each other.

Back to your other reply, how does your fractarded universe idea correct
this problem?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#592878

Michael said
"
Back to your other reply, how does your fractarded universe idea correct 
this problem? "

Yes
It is THE MAIN problem.

But remember WHERE the grav push
comes from; the matter itself. The
electron cycle.
It doesn't exist independently of the
matter. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#592907

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> tarded:

>Michael said
>"
>Back to your other reply, how does your fractarded universe idea correct 
>this problem? "

>Yes
>It is THE MAIN problem.

So your fractarded universe idea doesn't address this problem at all.
Unlike what you claimed, that it had solutions to the problems of LeSage
gravity.
Meanwhile, standard gravity theory doesn't even have this problem.
And you claim your ideas are better because...?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#592911

MM said
"
Meanwhile, standard gravity theory doesn't even have this problem. "

ROTFL

Standard gravity has so many problems
you can't even talk about them
all in the same day.
Don't get me started!!!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#592930

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>MM said
>"
>Meanwhile, standard gravity theory doesn't even have this problem. "

>ROTFL

>Standard gravity has so many problems
>you can't even talk about them
>all in the same day.
>Don't get me started!!!

What problems? Offhand, the only problem I know of is that we can't "connect
the dots" between GR and QM and the other 3 fundamental forces.

There are mysteries, such as the nature of dark matter and whether dark matter
exists or there is another explanation. But we know from Einstein lensing that
it really does look like galaxies are more massive than just their stars would
indicate.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#592894

On 8/11/2016 9:23 PM, john wrote:
> Well, Odd,
> In LeSage/Fatio gravity, there is shadowing.
> When the bodies get extremely big, the
> centers are no longer perceived;
> gravitationally they behave as if they are hollow, or
> unnaturally gassy and light.
> But, in actuality, they are rock and lava, etc.
> So, I'm not totally convinced of the
> sun mass measurements.

You believe the interior of the sun is rock and lava?

> The Stars may be 100 times more massive than
> you think. Boom; missing mass solved
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#592869

Well, if I was smart, I would plug in
those asymmetric rotation curves
into a program that would analyze whether
opposing sides of the disc aren't just
going opposite directions as far as we 
are concerned.
They're like a Doppler effect.
There should be an opposite warping
of the discs edge right where the
axis of precession lies.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#592870

Sorry, my bad- the warping of the disc
edges would be NINETY DEGREES
from the location of the axis of precession

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#592898

On 8/11/2016 9:35 PM, john wrote:
> Well, if I was smart,

Well if wishes were fishes.

> I would plug in
> those asymmetric rotation curves
> into a program that would analyze whether
> opposing sides of the disc aren't just
> going opposite directions as far as we
> are concerned.
> They're like a Doppler effect.
> There should be an opposite warping
> of the discs edge right where the
> axis of precession lies.
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web