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

    From Ross Finlayson@ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com to sci.physics.relativity on Sun Sep 28 18:54:39 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

    On 04/06/2024 08:52 AM, 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.



    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From The Starmaker@starmaker@ix.netcom.com to sci.physics.relativity on Wed Oct 1 10:05:28 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

    dats ridicilous! everybody knows rotation causes everything to fly
    apart!!


    Galaxies don't fly apart because they each are being held by Gravity.


    The Reason, the Purpose of
    Galaxies not flying apart is...

    too keep the Energy
    between stars ...flowing within.


    To give birth to new stars.


    A Star factory.


    The Starmaker- 'Where stars are made...overnight!'






    What university did you go to learn physics?....Costco's????
    --
    The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
    to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
    and challenge the unchallengeable.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From The Starmaker@starmaker@ix.netcom.com to sci.physics.relativity on Wed Oct 1 23:57:19 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

    On Wed, 01 Oct 2025 10:05:28 -0700, The Starmaker
    <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

    dats ridicilous! everybody knows rotation causes everything to fly
    apart!!


    Galaxies don't fly apart because they each are being held by Gravity.


    The Reason, the Purpose of
    Galaxies not flying apart is...

    too keep the Energy
    between stars ...flowing within.


    To give birth to new stars.


    A Star factory.


    The Starmaker- 'Where stars are made...overnight!'






    What university did you go to learn physics?....Costco's????

    It's very simple if you learn to read...code.

    Here is the code: 'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the
    earth.'

    "heavens" equals galaxies.

    "'in the beginning...."' is the beginning of time, ..at the
    ...beggin-ing.

    IN the beginning. IN.

    What's IN???? Galaxies.

    In the old days (before the big bang) there was no time.

    Stars existed, but didn't die...new stars kept being born.

    Eventually, Stars got too crowded and ran ...out-of-space.

    It got to a POINT where it exploded.

    So today, you have stars in galaxies born and die,
    to keep a balance, separated by other galaxies...

    Time makes stars die
    while giving spark to new stars
    and more space.

    The earth is the voice of the universe.

    the vocal chords.


    Why do you think I am The Starmaker?

    I make stars.

    Did your father go to law school at Costcos?


    Oh, I forgot...yous people are not allowed to THINK before the big
    bang....

    see no before
    speak no before
    hear no before

    wat a bunch of monkies.
    --
    The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
    to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
    and challenge the unchallengeable.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2