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

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".
Yet, it's quite most usual an object of the theory
and configuration and energy of experiments contrived
to estimate its properties make for that, there's a certain
part of physics that isn't science, it's mathematics, and
physics is a mathematical physics, and theory may well be
advised in its search for observables, via pure mathematics alone.