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

Python <python@org.invalid> wrote:

Le 10/04/2024 à 07:00, Thomas Heger a écrit :

Am Mittwoch000010, 10.04.2024 um 01:04 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson:

On 4/8/2024 11:47 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:

Am 05.04.2024 um 10:20 schrieb Mikko:
>

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.
>

>
This is a totally idiotic requirement.
>
Many things cannot be seen, even if they are real.
>
Seeing is limited to light of a very small frequency band, limited to
direct visibility and also limited by scale, time of existence and
illumination.
>
We also need somebody to watch.
>
But many things real do not fall into these categories.
>
>
E.g. very short lived particles are very hard to see.
>
Also invisible are radiowaves, the inside of planet Earth or of black
holes.
>
But would you like to shuffel all things under the rug, which are hard
to see?
>

 
Also, perhaps our current state of the art technology wrt observing the
universe from our little earth is damn near pre embryonic wrt the grand
scheme of things... ;^)
 

 
Usual observations from our perspective of the universe would require to
remove the effects of the delay, which is caused by the finite speed of
light.
 
But this is not done.

 
Of course it is done!!!
 
You have definitely never read any paper about astronomy, or the history
of astronomy. As a matter of fact one of the main issue in astronomy is
to determine the distance of objects as precisely as possible.
 
Thomas, why are you constantly making up stuff of that kind? Is it malice
or stupidity?
 
Both?

Hanlon's razor applies, I think.

And for amusement: noting different delays of quasar fluctuations,
in passing through an Einstein lens, is a practical way
of establishing their cosmological distance,

Jan