Liste des Groupes | Revenir à p relativity |
Am 30.03.2024 um 18:50 schrieb Python:Why would you want to explain someting that is never seen?Le 30/03/2024 à 08:41, Thomas Heger a écrit :I try to explain rotating galaxy vortices by foreground rotation of the frame of reference of the observer.
...Now cosmologists have a wellknown habit to ignore the delay caused by"wellknown"? Quite the opposite. This is something you made up (as
the finite speed of light, hence tend to take the observed image for
real and make no attempts to compensate the delay.
usual).
Haven't you noticed the number of papers proposing explanations for
the observation of big galaxies *older* than it was supposedly possible?
They are visible in images obtained *now* by spatial telescopes.
This is actually, what I had criticised in Einstein's 'On theThis is wrong. He did actually that in part I.1 in 1905 article as
electrodynamics of moving bodies' several times, too, because Einstein
didn't even mention the delay and made not effort to eliminate its
effects.
it as been *shown* to you in details numerous times (it is basically
obvious for any competent reader of the paper, only you failed to
understand that).
In cosmology the problem is much more obvious, but cosmologists makeThis is also wrong.
not attempts to compensate this effect, neither.
What the hell made you think such an idiotic thing? Cosmologists not
taking in account the finite light propagation speed? Seriously, you
have a cognitive problem of some kind.
Instead they are looking for the cause of rotation of the vortexThey noticed that the rotational speed of stars in most galaxies
structure (what is rather silly).
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.
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).
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.