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 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#629725 — Angular velocity as magnetic monopoles do not exist in physics

You see each galaxy has stars and has gravity. A spiral galaxy has all its stars from nucleus to edge in solid body linear momentum motion, meaning equal speeds of its stars. On top of this linear momentum, all those stars lie upon a Magnetic disc that spins around the axis of that galaxy. 

The stars are in solid body linear motion all with equal speeds and then the entire disc of space they reside is spinning.

Gravity = Magnetism = linear momentum + spinning disc of space

AP

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

#629746 — Re: Angular velocity as magnetic monopoles do not exist in physics

On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 2:46:19 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium, APe, wrote: <snip APe's crap>
>

On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 10:45:20 AM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium,
APe,the loud-mouthing sh()thead, wrote:
> More later,,,,, so that everybody will be
f.art.ingatu 
>
Mr. APe, any and all errors in that ancient Halliday & Resnick text book you criticized were corrected by its readers within weeks after its publication, LONG AGO, why is why  everybody is LAUGHING and 
f.art. ingatu
 

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

#629656 — Re: Proof that Archimeded Plutonium is a complete physics failure//

Archie, you are projecting again, badly. Does it really bother you that
much that you have failed at physics?

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

>On Monday, April 17, 2017 at 10:35:13 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:

>> >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.

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

Very Good, Archie. You are fulfilling your role as a failure at physics in
finding references, and you found a good one that disproves your claim.
About the very first thing I see in the summary: "For this sample: (1) All
rotation curves are approximately flat, to distances as great as r = 50kpc."
Just as I was saying, the rotation velocity is constant beyond a minimum
radius, disproving solid body rotation.

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

Very good again! You can even interpret that reference properly! Maybe
you aren't a complete failure, after all!

>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.

Ummm, that is what "rotation" means... going around in circles... that is
what Ford/Rubin etc. were all studying, trying to understand why the 
visible mass of galaxies seemingly wasn't following the inverse square law
in their rotation curves.

[snip HUGE attempt at diversion]

> Solid Body orientation.

Talk about moving the goalposts!  We were discussing Solid Body ROTATION!
That is what Ford/Thonnard/Rubin were studying.  ROTATION.

[snip even more diversion and projection of his failure onto me]

You just can't admit you're wrong, can you. No wonder you failed at 
physics.

> Moroney is just a dense dumb idiot that is not worth reading.

And yet you eat this up.  You love the attention, even if it's bad 
attention.

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

#629457 — Re: Getting the history of Dark Matter fakery correct

On 04/16/2017 08:57 AM, 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.
>
Johm Dark matter is bullshit because the Big Bang is Bullshit (My BBB 
Theory) They took the WRONG BB theory and calculated the imaginary 
"expansion' of the universe and from that mistake they calculated that 
there was not enough matter to make happen what they all desperately 
believed with their whole hearts was happening so they invented another 
lit to try to save the whole mess. This is what HVAC is all about. Lies 
and insane fantasies.

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

#629308 — Re: Getting the history of Dark Matter fakery correct

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

>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

Neither.  Vera Rubin noticed that in the disks, V = constant.

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

#629287 — Re: AP has no source for his claim that inner-reach stars gave birth to dark matter

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

>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.

Nope.  The star velocity was discovered to be *constant*, meaning *no*
solid body rotation.  Solid body rotation would mean a star velocity
*proportional* to the distance from the center, like a record on a record
player.

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

You keep projecting depression.  Does that really mean that you are 
depressed over failing at physics and projecting it on me?  That's
ok, if you go see a psychiatrist he can likely treat that and your
hallucination as well.

>If Vera Rubin said "Solid body rotation, means dark matter"

She didn't, of course.

> MM interprets that as meaning Outer Reach star means dark matter.

No, her interpretation of star velocity of the edge stars of Andromeda
(and other galaxies) and the inner velocities led to theorizing dark
matter.

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

You yourself stated losers at physics have to cite their claims.  So that
means you have to give a cite to your claim Rubin mentioned solid body
rotation when she discovered dark matter effects.

So where is your cite?

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

#629297 — Re: AP has no source for his claim that inner-reach stars gave birth to dark matter

MM
"Nope.  The star velocity was discovered to be *constant*, meaning *no* 
solid body rotation.  Solid body rotation would mean a star velocity 
*proportional* to the distance from the center, like a record on a record 
player. 
"
Here's a c+p for ya.
What does this mean for a straight line, Michael?
"The rotation curve of a disc galaxy (also called a velocity curve) is a plot of the orbital speeds of visible stars or gas in that galaxy versus their radial distance from that galaxy's centre."

Now, when it's a straight line, what would that

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

#629306 — Re: AP has no source for his claim that inner-reach stars gave birth to dark matter

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>MM
>"Nope.  The star velocity was discovered to be *constant*, meaning *no* 
>solid body rotation.  Solid body rotation would mean a star velocity 
>*proportional* to the distance from the center, like a record on a record 
>player. 
>"
>Here's a c+p for ya.
>What does this mean for a straight line, Michael?
>"The rotation curve of a disc galaxy (also called a velocity curve) is a plot of the orbital speeds of visible stars or gas in that galaxy versus their radial distance from that galaxy's centre."

>Now, when it's a straight line, what would that

It is (approximately) a straight HORIZONTAL line, meaning constant speed,
so a star twice as far out as a second star takes twice as long to orbit
the center that the second star does.  Solid body rotation would mean that
the first star moves twice as fast as the second star so they both take 
the same time to orbit, like points on a record on a record player.

Solid Body rotation would also be a straight line, but one with a nonzero
slope (not horizontal) and the line passing through the origin.

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

#629250 — 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

MM
"more so 
in the 1950s with radio astronomy.  (so Dark Matter isn't even a new idea) "

which doesn't make it any less stupid.

Reality check: we are trying to explain
the matter we SEE. Why the matter we SEE
gravitates as it does.

If you have to invoke a brand new matter to
solve this issue, you haven't solved anything
because now you have 100 more unexplained things.

It's stupid.

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

#629254 — 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

Of course, a Fractal Universe would mean
lots of invisible matter scales below ours,
so maybe that's what they're seeing the effects
of.
Maybe 'Dark Matter' and 'all the other fractal 
layers' are one and the same.

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

#629317 — 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> writes:

>Reality check: we are trying to explain
>the matter we SEE. Why the matter we SEE
>gravitates as it does.

Exactly.  What we SEE doesn't act as it should, so science has to figure
out why what we SEE does that.  It just happens that if we add matter that
we can't see in the right places, it *does* act as it should.

>If you have to invoke a brand new matter to
>solve this issue, you haven't solved anything
>because now you have 100 more unexplained things.

Why would that be a problem?

>It's stupid.

You always say things like "it's stupid" but you can never give a reason
*why* "it's stupid".

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web