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

Groups > sci.physics > #629177 > unrolled thread

Who taught MM-- outer parts of Spiral Galaxies needs explaining, not solid body. Was it Randall, Hawking, Brown & Batygin, Baez, Weinberg, Tyson, Lederman, Higgs, Briane Greene

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Who taught MM-- outer parts of Spiral Galaxies needs explaining, not solid body. Was it  Randall, Hawking, Brown & Batygin, Baez, Weinberg, Tyson, Lederman, Higgs, Briane Greene Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-04-15 13:17 -0700
    Re: Who taught AP-- outer parts of Spiral Galaxies needs explaining, not solid body. Was it Randall, Hawking, Brown & Batygin, Baez, Weinberg, Tyson, Lederman, Higgs, Briane Greene moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-04-16 01:36 +0000
      can the MM failure of physics cite a source for his outer-reach-stars causing the dark matter fakery, Can he? Probably not Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-04-15 19:29 -0700
        Re: can the AP failure of physics cite a source for his core-stars causing the dark matter fakery, Can he? Probably not moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-04-16 05:01 +0000
          MM has no source for his claim that outer-reach stars gave birth to dark matter Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-04-15 22:14 -0700
            Getting the history of Dark Matter fakery correct Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-04-16 00:32 -0700
              Getting the history of Dark Matter fakery correct john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-04-16 05:57 -0700
                Getting the history of Dark Matter fakery correct john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-04-16 06:19 -0700
                yes, what did Rubin & Ford mean by edge? was it the R or the 1/R boundary Re: Getting the history of Dark Matter fakery correct Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-04-16 13:32 -0700
                  When Rubin and Ford should have won a prize for galaxy rotations Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-04-17 00:38 -0700
                    Panek gives a good overview of Rubin history Re: When Rubin and Ford should have won a prize for galaxy rotations Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-04-17 11:31 -0700
                    Re: When Rubin and Ford should have won a prize for galaxy rotations moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-04-18 03:35 +0000
                      MM injects Dark Matter when things move normally Re: When Rubin and Ford should have won a prize for galaxy rotations Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-04-17 21:05 -0700
                        Re: MM injects Dark Matter when things move normally Re: When Rubin and Ford should have won a prize for galaxy rotations "F.Art.Ingatu" <F.Art.Ingatu@hotmail.com> - 2017-04-17 22:21 -0700
                        Re: AP injects nutty thoughts on Dark Matter when things move abnormally Re: When Rubin and Ford should have won a prize for galaxy rotations moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-04-18 06:02 +0000
                      Proof that Michael Moroney is a complete physics failure// little better than Porat, Odd, HVAC, Benj, but worse than Ed Prochak Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-04-17 23:12 -0700
                        Solid body rotation as equal velocity of stars teaches a galactic spin Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-04-18 01:02 -0700
                          Solid body rotation as equal velocity of stars teaches a galactic spin Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-04-18 01:38 -0700
                            Angular velocity as magnetic monopoles do not exist in physics Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-04-18 10:45 -0700
                              Re: Angular velocity as magnetic monopoles do not exist in physics "F.Art.Ingatu" <F.Art.Ingatu@hotmail.com> - 2017-04-18 13:06 -0700
                              Angular velocity as magnetic monopoles do not exist in physics Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-04-18 14:46 -0700
                                Re: Angular velocity as magnetic monopoles do not exist in physics "F.Art.Ingatu" <F.Art.Ingatu@hotmail.com> - 2017-04-18 17:19 -0700
                        Re: Proof that Archimeded Plutonium is a complete physics failure// moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-04-18 13:29 +0000
                Re: Getting the history of Dark Matter fakery correct benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-04-17 01:02 -0400
              Re: Getting the history of Dark Matter fakery correct moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-04-16 17:06 +0000
            Re: AP has no source for his claim that inner-reach stars gave birth to dark matter moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-04-16 13:18 +0000
              Re: AP has no source for his claim that inner-reach stars gave birth to dark matter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-04-16 08:30 -0700
                Re: AP has no source for his claim that inner-reach stars gave birth to dark matter moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-04-16 16:59 +0000
      Re: Who taught AP-- outer parts of Spiral Galaxies needs explaining, not solid body. Was it Randall, Hawking, Brown & Batygin, Baez, Weinberg, Tyson, Lederman, Higgs, Briane Greene john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-04-15 19:37 -0700
        Re: Who taught AP-- outer parts of Spiral Galaxies needs explaining, not solid body. Was it Randall, Hawking, Brown & Batygin, Baez, Weinberg, Tyson, Lederman, Higgs, Briane Greene john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-04-15 19:46 -0700
        Re: Who taught AP-- outer parts of Spiral Galaxies needs explaining, not solid body. Was it Randall, Hawking, Brown & Batygin, Baez, Weinberg, Tyson, Lederman, Higgs, Briane Greene moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-04-16 18:02 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#629177 — Who taught MM-- outer parts of Spiral Galaxies needs explaining, not solid body. Was it Randall, Hawking, Brown & Batygin, Baez, Weinberg, Tyson, Lederman, Higgs, Briane Greene

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 13:11:26 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Does Hawking condone MM? Re: Pauli Exclusion Principle scares physics
 clowns-- Hawking, Tyson, Lederman, Weinberg, Brown, Randall
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 20:11:27 +0000


Does Hawking condone MM? Re: Pauli Exclusion Principle scares physics clowns-- Hawking, Tyson, Lederman, Weinberg, Brown, Randall

On Saturday, April 15, 2017 at 9:03:33 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> writes: 
> 
> >> First off, since spiral galaxies do NOT rotate as solid bodies, any 
> >>'discovery' that they did so forty years ago was wrong, except there was 
> >>no such discovery. 
> 
> >Most of the stars in spiral galaxies are solid body rotation near the centers 
> 
> >How do you think the dark matter fakery started 
> 
> Dark matter was hypothesized to explain the rotation curves of the OUTER 
> parts of spiral galaxies.  Which don't rotate as a solid body BTW. 
> 

Would you look at that. 

What an astounding remark, so you have trouble with the stars "in close to the nucleus of a spiral galaxy because they are solid body rotation" and then the fools of MM taught by Randall, Hawking, Brown & Batygin, Baez, Weinberg, Tyson, Lederman, Higgs, Briane Greene teaching MM that it is the outer parts of the galaxy that needs explaining. 

Even Hanson, Porat, HVAC, Odd, Prochak know better,,,, 

AP

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#629241 — Re: Who taught AP-- outer parts of Spiral Galaxies needs explaining, not solid body. Was it Randall, Hawking, Brown & Batygin, Baez, Weinberg, Tyson, Lederman, Higgs, Briane Greene

Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> writes:

>Would you look at that.=20

>What an astounding remark, so you have trouble with the stars "in close to
>the nucleus of a spiral galaxy because they are solid body rotation" and
>then the fools of MM taught by Randall, Hawking, Brown & Batygin, Baez, 
>Weinberg, Tyson, Lederman, Higgs, Briane Greene teaching MM that it is 
>the outer parts of the galaxy that needs explaining.

Just correcting your mistake. You thought dark matter was theorized to
explain galactic cores, when it was first theorized to explain why the
stars at the outer reaches of galaxies don't orbit slower than the inner
ones (but still outside the luminous and apparently massive core), like
how Pluto orbits the sun much slower than Mercury.  Astronomers knew
something was up once they were able to get good spectra of galaxies in
the early 1900s and the dark matter idea came up in the 1930s and more so
in the 1950s with radio astronomy.  (so Dark Matter isn't even a new idea)

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

#629248 — can the MM failure of physics cite a source for his outer-reach-stars causing the dark matter fakery, Can he? Probably not

On Saturday, April 15, 2017 at 8:36:40 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> >Would you look at that.=20
> 
> >What an astounding remark, so you have trouble with the stars "in close to
> >the nucleus of a spiral galaxy because they are solid body rotation" and
> >then the fools of MM taught by Randall, Hawking, Brown & Batygin, Baez, 
> >Weinberg, Tyson, Lederman, Higgs, Briane Greene teaching MM that it is 
> >the outer parts of the galaxy that needs explaining.
> 
> Just correcting your mistake. You thought dark matter was theorized to
> explain galactic cores, when it was first theorized to explain why the
> stars at the outer reaches of galaxies don't orbit slower than the inner
> ones (but still outside the luminous and apparently massive core), like
> how Pluto orbits the sun much slower than Mercury.  Astronomers knew

You need to cite an actual reference that says as much, for you are a physics failure and nothing you say is worth accepting unless you cite what others (not failures of physics) wrote on the topic.

Being a physics failure, you can not be trusted to know right from wrong. Vera Rubin, to cite my source, was one of the first, early on astronomers who noticed that spiral galaxies star near the core did Solid Body Rotation, and her explanation for solid body rotation was dark matter.

Now, MM,-- what is your source for outer reach stars being the birth of dark matter baloney

> something was up once they were able to get good spectra of galaxies in
> the early 1900s and the dark matter idea came up in the 1930s and more so
> in the 1950s with radio astronomy.  (so Dark Matter isn't even a new idea)

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

#629266 — Re: can the AP failure of physics cite a source for his core-stars causing the dark matter fakery, Can he? Probably not

Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> writes:

>On Saturday, April 15, 2017 at 8:36:40 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:

>> Just correcting your mistake. You thought dark matter was theorized to
>> explain galactic cores, when it was first theorized to explain why the
>> stars at the outer reaches of galaxies don't orbit slower than the inner
>> ones (but still outside the luminous and apparently massive core), like
>> how Pluto orbits the sun much slower than Mercury.  Astronomers knew

>You need to cite an actual reference that says as much, for you are a 
>physcs failure

You're projecting again. Does it really bother you that much that you are
a physics failure so you have to project your failure on others?

> and nothing you say is worth accepting unless you cite what others 
>(not failures of physics) wrote on the topic.

Go fetch your own rocks.  You didn't even give an actual cite yourself.

>Being a physics failure,

So you finally admit to your failure at physics?

>Vera Rubin, to cite my source, was one of the first, early on astronomers 
>who noticed that spiral galaxies star near the core did Solid Body 
>Rotation, and her explanation for solid body rotation was dark matter.

Nope. Vera Rubin, in the 1970s, noticed that the stars at the _edge_ of 
the Andromeda Galaxy were moving just as fast as ones near the center of
it, seemingly in violation of Newton's Laws of Motion. Her discovery was 
considered the first direct evidence of dark matter.

And you didn't even give an actual cite.

Now, will you realize your mistake or just bluster on some more?

[insert AP's bluster here]

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

#629267 — MM has no source for his claim that outer-reach stars gave birth to dark matter

On Sunday, April 16, 2017 at 12:01:02 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> writes:
> 
(snipped)
> 
> Nope. Vera Rubin, in the 1970s, noticed that the stars at the _edge_ of 
> the Andromeda Galaxy were moving just as fast as ones near the center of
> it, seemingly in violation of Newton's Laws of Motion. Her discovery was 
> considered the first direct evidence of dark matter.
> 

Yet again I am correct "moving just as fast as ones near the center" is called solid body rotation.

This is why MM needs a psychiatrist for his depression-- he twists everything around, just to counter AP.

If Vera Rubin said "Solid body rotation, means dark matter" MM interprets that as meaning Outer Reach star means dark matter.

So, MM, you have no source, but making things up as you go.

AP

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

#629271 — Getting the history of Dark Matter fakery correct

So did Dark Matter fakery come about from stars with solid body rotation V proportional to R, or, from stars with V proportional to 1/R

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

#629285 — Getting the history of Dark Matter fakery correct

AP
"So did Dark Matter fakery come about from stars with solid body rotation V proportional to R, or, from stars with V proportional to 1/R "

Dark Matter bullshit came about
because standalone suck Gravity 
reveals itself as wrong when dealing
with larger objects.
There is shadowing that occurs with these
larger objects because the push that is
actually causing Gravity doesn't
make it all the way through, and therefore
the effects of some of the matter is missing .
Earlier astronomers got hints of this. GRCs
are more than a hint- they are in your face
saying SUCK GRAVITY IS WRONG.

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

#629288 — Getting the history of Dark Matter fakery correct

When they do a GRC for a galaxy, they pick
one at a convenient angle, and they assess
stars' speeds as they move away or towards 
us. It should be the same, right? Pick the
rim moving away or the rim moving towards,
it should be the same speed, right?
It's not.
The rotation curve for opposite sides of
a galaxy are DIFFERENT. The actual
rotation curve that comes out nice and
straight? Doesn't exist. They AVERAGE the
two findings to get the actual GRC.

That's another sign that all is not right in
Camelot. But, thinking on it, it really locks
in that all discs are doing the same thing,
if light coming from them is all doing the
same.

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

#629357 — yes, what did Rubin & Ford mean by edge? was it the R or the 1/R boundary Re: Getting the history of Dark Matter fakery correct

On Sunday, April 16, 2017 at 7:57:49 AM UTC-5, john wrote:
> AP
> "So did Dark Matter fakery come about from stars with solid body rotation V proportional to R, or, from stars with V proportional to 1/R "
> 
> Dark Matter bullshit came about
> because standalone suck Gravity 
> reveals itself as wrong when dealing
> with larger objects.
> There is shadowing that occurs with these
> larger objects because the push that is
> actually causing Gravity doesn't
> make it all the way through, and therefore
> the effects of some of the matter is missing .
> Earlier astronomers got hints of this. GRCs
> are more than a hint- they are in your face
> saying SUCK GRAVITY IS WRONG.

Hi John, appreciate your answers.

I have not yet located what Rubin & Ford would have called "edge or periphery stars"

To the failures of physics like MM, Odd, Hawking, Tyson, Brown & Batygin, Greene, the edge or periphery does not matter to them, they could care less with their "dark matter nonsense" whether edge means the boundary of speeds of 1/R with 1/R^2 or whether the "edge, periphery" means the boundary of speeds R to 1/R.

To a real physicist, this matters as to whether Edge , Periphery for Rubin and Ford was the boundary R to 1/R or was the boundary between 1/R to 1/R^2.

Cranks, clowns and failures never concern themselves with important details.

But, a totally different item comes up in that of the CLUMPING of galaxies into clusters. And that if you have MAGNETISM = GRAVITY, then because magnetism is a force that does all three of these;;

proportional to R
proportional to 1/R
proportional to 1/R^2

Because Magnetism easily does all three of those, that the clumping of galaxies is due to 1/R and hence
Newton gravity or General Relativity failed even before the study of stars rotating in galaxies.

But then, the history of seeing "galaxies clump" may have been after the study of star rotations.

So I need to find out what exactly did Rubin & Ford mean by their "edge", did they mean R speeds or did they mean 1/R speeds. I am confident they meant R speeds because most spiral galaxies have a very pronounced and visible R speed that extends far from the nucleus of the galaxy.

So still looking for some writer who made clear what they meant by their "edge".

AP

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

#629474 — When Rubin and Ford should have won a prize for galaxy rotations

On Sunday, April 16, 2017 at 3:32:41 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Sunday, April 16, 2017 at 7:57:49 AM UTC-5, john wrote:
> > AP
> > "So did Dark Matter fakery come about from stars with solid body rotation V proportional to R, or, from stars with V proportional to 1/R "
> > 
> > Dark Matter bullshit came about
> > because standalone suck Gravity 
> > reveals itself as wrong when dealing
> > with larger objects.
> > There is shadowing that occurs with these
> > larger objects because the push that is
> > actually causing Gravity doesn't
> > make it all the way through, and therefore
> > the effects of some of the matter is missing .
> > Earlier astronomers got hints of this. GRCs
> > are more than a hint- they are in your face
> > saying SUCK GRAVITY IS WRONG.
> 
> Hi John, appreciate your answers.
> 
> I have not yet located what Rubin & Ford would have called "edge or periphery stars"
> 
> To the failures of physics like MM, Odd, Hawking, Tyson, Brown & Batygin, Greene, the edge or periphery does not matter to them, they could care less with their "dark matter nonsense" whether edge means the boundary of speeds of 1/R with 1/R^2 or whether the "edge, periphery" means the boundary of speeds R to 1/R.
> 
> To a real physicist, this matters as to whether Edge , Periphery for Rubin and Ford was the boundary R to 1/R or was the boundary between 1/R to 1/R^2.
> 
> Cranks, clowns and failures never concern themselves with important details.
> 
> But, a totally different item comes up in that of the CLUMPING of galaxies into clusters. And that if you have MAGNETISM = GRAVITY, then because magnetism is a force that does all three of these;;
> 
> proportional to R
> proportional to 1/R
> proportional to 1/R^2
> 
> Because Magnetism easily does all three of those, that the clumping of galaxies is due to 1/R and hence
> Newton gravity or General Relativity failed even before the study of stars rotating in galaxies.
> 
> But then, the history of seeing "galaxies clump" may have been after the study of star rotations.
> 
> So I need to find out what exactly did Rubin & Ford mean by their "edge", did they mean R speeds or did they mean 1/R speeds. I am confident they meant R speeds because most spiral galaxies have a very pronounced and visible R speed that extends far from the nucleus of the galaxy.
> 
> So still looking for some writer who made clear what they meant by their "edge".
> 
> AP

Alright, I found the answer, in Scientific American, Dec. 2016 written by Panek.

He describes gas clouds on the edge of the Andromeda galaxy spinning as fast as stars near the Nucleus. In other words, solid body rotation to the edge of the galaxy.

So, the fake hypothesis of Dark Matter originates with Solid Body Rotation.

And Panek says that Rubin was shy of the concept Dark Matter, and gave much latitude to the idea that Newton's laws need fixing.

Now I think Ford is still alive and can sharpen up the detail of solid body rotation at the edge or whether it was V proportional to 1/R as edge. But it looks as though it was V proportional to R at edge.

So, with Vera's acknowledgement that Newton's laws could be all fuddy duddy, I will hence forth stop "razzing" Vera. And this explains real well, why she was not awarded any prize for Dark Matter, for to do  so is a huge fakery.

So, what can be asked for, by scientists is to stop the hideous "preaching of Dark Matter" and look towards seeing that Newtons gravity and General Relativity gravity are actually Magnetism on a cosmic scale.

See how Magnetism can cause solid body rotation.

So that if Vera had applied Magnetism to galaxies, then she should have won a prize.

AP

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

#629538 — Panek gives a good overview of Rubin history Re: When Rubin and Ford should have won a prize for galaxy rotations

Reading some more of Panek's "Vera Rubin Didn't Discover Dark Matter"

where Vera got up in the audience at a Martin Rees lecture and said, words to the effect "yea yea yea you been predicting Dark Matter for the past 30 years"

So we get a sense that Vera was a good and gracious scientist, using logic, very much using logic

While it is the dolts of Martin Rees who boneheadedly keeps steering young scientists into his boneheaded world.

Vera saw that Newtons laws could be the full blame for why solid body rotation exists so vastly in galaxies.

But then there are physics clowns like Rees who can never question the math of Newton or the math of General Relativity.

They should have given Vera the Nobel Prize in physics for using logic, while Rees uses clown tricks.

AP

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

#629619 — Re: When Rubin and Ford should have won a prize for galaxy rotations

Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> writes:

>Alright, I found the answer, in Scientific American, Dec. 2016 written by P=
>anek.

>He describes gas clouds on the edge of the Andromeda galaxy spinning as fas=
>t as stars near the Nucleus. In other words, solid body rotation to the edg=
>e of the galaxy.

>So, the fake hypothesis of Dark Matter originates with Solid Body Rotation.

No, silly, Rubin discovered the outer edge moved at the same speed as
parts near the center. Not solid body rotation since the outer edge stars
have a longer trip around the center.

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

#629621 — MM injects Dark Matter when things move normally Re: When Rubin and Ford should have won a prize for galaxy rotations

On Monday, April 17, 2017 at 10:35:13 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> >Alright, I found the answer, in Scientific American, Dec. 2016 written by P=
> >anek.
> 
> >He describes gas clouds on the edge of the Andromeda galaxy spinning as fas=
> >t as stars near the Nucleus. In other words, solid body rotation to the edg=
> >e of the galaxy.
> 
> >So, the fake hypothesis of Dark Matter originates with Solid Body Rotation.
> 
> No, silly, Rubin discovered the outer edge moved at the same speed as
> parts near the center. Not solid body rotation since the outer edge stars
> have a longer trip around the center.

Then you are saying all is normal, and the conjecture of Dark Matter was inserted because the edge speed was normal and the center speed was normal.

So, you think that when everything is moving normally, then physicists have to inject Dark Matter. Did HVAC whisper this into your ear?

By the way, do you actually know how star speeds are calculated, and why Ford's instrument was an improvement, or is that too far over your head and that Wikipedia does not have a entry on it.

AP

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

#629632 — Re: MM injects Dark Matter when things move normally Re: When Rubin and Ford should have won a prize for galaxy rotations

On Monday, April 17, 2017 at 9:05:21 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium AP wrote:
> On Monday, April 17, 2017 at 10:35:13 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:

> MM Did HVAC whisper this into your ear?
> AP
>
Mr.APe, HVAC said loud  and clear into his ear that he is
f.art.ingatu

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

#629636 — Re: AP injects nutty thoughts on Dark Matter when things move abnormally Re: When Rubin and Ford should have won a prize for galaxy rotations

Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> writes:

>On Monday, April 17, 2017 at 10:35:13 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> writes:
>> 
>> >Alright, I found the answer, in Scientific American, Dec. 2016 written by P=
>> >anek.
>> 
>> >He describes gas clouds on the edge of the Andromeda galaxy spinning as fas=
>> >t as stars near the Nucleus. In other words, solid body rotation to the edg=
>> >e of the galaxy.
>> 
>> >So, the fake hypothesis of Dark Matter originates with Solid Body Rotation.
>> 
>> No, silly, Rubin discovered the outer edge moved at the same speed as
>> parts near the center. Not solid body rotation since the outer edge stars
>> have a longer trip around the center.

>Then you are saying all is normal, and the conjecture of Dark Matter was 
>inserted because the edge speed was normal and the center speed was 
>normal.

Quit making up crap. I said nothing of the sort. Rubin noticed things were
NOT moving normally, stuff at the outer edge was moving at the same speed 
as the inner edge, not slower (like how Pluto moves slower than Mercury).

>So, you think that when everything is moving normally, then physicists 
>have to inject Dark Matter. Did HVAC whisper this into your ear?

Does not follow.

>By the way, do you actually know how star speeds are calculated, and why 
>Ford's instrument was an improvement, or is that too far over your head 
>and that Wikipedia does not have a entry on it.

They had access to a highly accurate spectral analyzer and time on high
power telescopes.  They determined speed by the Doppler shift of light.

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

#629638 — Proof that Michael Moroney is a complete physics failure// little better than Porat, Odd, HVAC, Benj, but worse than Ed Prochak

On Monday, April 17, 2017 at 10:35:13 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> >Alright, I found the answer, in Scientific American, Dec. 2016 written by P=
> >anek.
> 
> >He describes gas clouds on the edge of the Andromeda galaxy spinning as fas=
> >t as stars near the Nucleus. In other words, solid body rotation to the edg=
> >e of the galaxy.
> 
> >So, the fake hypothesis of Dark Matter originates with Solid Body Rotation.
> 
> No, silly, Rubin discovered the outer edge moved at the same speed as
> parts near the center. Not solid body rotation since the outer edge stars
> have a longer trip around the center.

Now I have to be honest to readers, I lured the idiot Moroney into this, because he is such a crapper personality, that only a sledge hammer on his idiocy will do.

Extended rotation curves of high-luminosity spiral galaxies. IV- Systematic dynamical properties, SA through SC, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 1978.

What Rubin and Ford announced in that article is that the stars move at equal speed, in most of the cases.

Now, Moroney is so much a physics failure that he does not understand what that means-- stars at equal speed. He is so dumb in physics that he thinks it means stars are all going around in circles and those on outer paths have more distance to travel than those on inner paths. 

But what he fails to understand is that Solid Body Rotation is equal velocity.

A        B         C       D         E


     F                          H

                     G  


If those are stars of Andromeda, center at C. And if all were moving in direction ----->

And all were moving equal speed, then at T_2 later, they would all have the same orientation to one another -- Solid Body orientation.

This is too much over the head of Moroney.

And if F G H were in the same orbit path, doing the same speed, they keep their same relative distance from one another -- Solid Body.

A quack and flake of physics that Moroney is, can never understand or learn this. His game is -- see what AP is saying-- then, say the exact opposite. Moroney is just a dense dumb idiot that is not worth reading.

AP

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

#629645 — Solid body rotation as equal velocity of stars teaches a galactic spin

And, even a solar system spin for gravity.

For two days now i have been wrestling with how Magnetism = Gravity produces Kepler's 3rd law, and have found that answer tonight.

How do you get Solid Body Motion

Notice i said motion, not rotation

That has fooled me up until now, also

In solid body motion that has forward motion and has rotation motion such as a spiral galaxy it is essential for all the speeds be identical-- that is the linear component of Gravity = Magnetism

But, we have not even begun to talk about the rotation of the entire galaxy around a axis at its center, or the rotation of the Solar System around a axis of the Sun-- this is the part where planets revolve around the sun. The first part-- linear momentum in space is identical velocity, the second part of gravity-- going around in ellipse is the rotation of gravity= magnetism.

And it is in this roation-- not caused by Sun pulling on Earth but caused by the entire plane of Ecliptic spinning.

So picture these bodies in space with identical speeds

A     B     C     D     E

       F              H

                G

All identical speeds and moving linearly in direction --->

They are solid body motion

Now, place a spin on that plane, and there you have solid body gravity

The spin of the plane is what gives us Kepler's 3rd law T^2 proportional d^3

AP

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

#629646 — Solid body rotation as equal velocity of stars teaches a galactic spin

Now i also see where kepler's 3rd law comes into electricity and magnetism

More easily seen and understood as the flow of electrons-- a spinning of electrons by the magnetic field. The electron linear motion is the emf or voltage. In Magnetism if a monopole exists would be linear motion of a magnetic particle

-----> monopole

But a dipole is spin motion O going around in circle

Linear is distance / time

Angular spin is d^3 / time^2 (Kepler's 3rd law)

Newton's gravity was mass pulls other mass to go around in a ellipse

General Relativity gravity was mass bends space and other mass follows in the depression of bent space

AP gravity is gravity= Magnetism where all cosmic bodies have linear momentum and a second momentum of a magnetic spin around some particular axis-- solar system axis, galaxy axis, galactic cluster axis

AP

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

#629691 — Angular velocity as magnetic monopoles do not exist in physics

Alright now on page A2 of Halliday & Resnick are shown Units, and one of the largest yet most simple of all mistakes in physics. A mistake made by physicists barren of logic that compares to the mistake made by mathematicians when they think angles can be greater than 360 degrees or when they think sine is sinusoid when it is semicircular.

The huge but simple mistake is

Speed, velocity   L/T

Angular velocity   Radian/T

Angular acceleration Radian/T^2

Now it is a subtle but simple mistake and has confused physicists starting with Kepler and Newton in the 1600's.

It is of major importance because it has kept physicists away from understanding that linear and angular momentum are bound together as dual complements of one another just as magnetism is circular while electricity is linear.

The mistake, the huge mistake is -- there is no angular velocity in Nature in Physics-- there is only angular acceleration when an object is in circle motion.

Electricity exists with monopole but magnetism exists-- starting off only with dipole-- never monopole.

When a object of physics moves in a circular path it is always changing direction-- meaning it is always accelerating and never is it angular velocity. Angular velocity does not exist, nor does a magnetic monopole.

Kepler's 3rd law was basically saying planets and Sun are magnetically going around the sun as to L/T^2.

More later,,,,, 

AP

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

#629702 — Re: Angular velocity as magnetic monopoles do not exist in physics

On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 10:45:20 AM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium,
APe wrote: 
> More later,,,,, so that everybody will be
f.art.ingatu
> 

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web