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

Ross Finlayson wrote:

>
On 04/05/2024 11:04 PM, The Starmaker wrote:

Ross Finlayson wrote:

>
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".

>
What about Erwin Muller? isn't he der furst tu see an atom??
>
>
>
>

>
It's kind of like one time sometime asked Einstein, "are atoms real?",
and he said something like, "yeah, you know, there are reasons why
it's really just a concession to the notion that in the theory
there's mathematics and the vanishing and infinitesimal, and of
course it relates to all the antique and historical theories of
the atomism or what we call Democritan atomism, and, chemistry
arrives at stoichiometry or perfect proportions with regards to
quantities of masses of chemical elements, then what we have is
electron physics, about specifically the discreteness of the
energies, which we sort of need because otherwise mathematics
runs over, so we got electron physics, then there's Avogadro's
number, or about 9.022*10^23 many atoms per mole, and we got
stuff going on about Angstroms five above and Planck five below,
the orders of magnitude of the size of these theoretical particles,
yet it's still just an conceit to the theory of particles, and
then though we know there's particle/wave duality, so on the
one hand it's just to give people the idea that there are simple
finite quantities, even in the atomic scale, yet otherwise it's
still a conceit, so, ..., yeah, sure, atoms are real".
>
It might help if you know that NIST CODATA prints a table of
the fundamental physical constants, and, every few years
they've gotten smaller, not just more precise yet smaller,
it's called "running constants", and helps explain how a
theory of atomism and discrete particles works just great,
when really it's a continuum mechanics.

>
>
Translation: Erwin Muller wasn't a Jewish scientist, so he's not suppose
to be known for seeing the atom.
>
>
dat explains Why 6 million jewish people were subject to genocide...
>
besides being a stone in everyones shoe.
>
>
>
>
>
>