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.

--
Mikko

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.

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??

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

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.

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.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

On 04/06/2024 12:08 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>

One does not simply _invoke_ Godwin's law, ....

Ross Finlayson wrote:
>
> On 04/06/2024 12:08 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> One does not simply _invoke_ Godwin's law, ....

Godwin is a fraud, his fake law is a fraud. And he's a Democrat! and his
wife is a Chink.

The law is, there is no law.

People with the word "God" in their name tend to think...they are God!

I heard girls from Cambodia are hot.

How old is his wife...13?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQOuoUaSxKQ

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

On 3/18/2024 11:20 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>
> A hypothesis ....
>
> ... filling the space that is the agglomeration of what was their jet.
>
> So, are there gravitic singularities in the middle of galaxies?  Maybe not.
>
> Are there gravitic filaments holding it all together?  Maybe not.
>

Think of a giant center black hole, with smaller black holes wandering
the dust lanes of the galaxy. They are all connected, perhaps? Just
pondering here.

On 4/7/2024 2:31 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 3/18/2024 11:20 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>
>> A hypothesis ....
>>
>> ... filling the space that is the agglomeration of what was their jet.
>>
>> So, are there gravitic singularities in the middle of galaxies?  Maybe
>> not.
>>
>> Are there gravitic filaments holding it all together?  Maybe not.
>>
>
> Think of a giant center black hole, with smaller black holes wandering
> the dust lanes of the galaxy. They are all connected, perhaps? Just
> pondering here.

The rotation of the massive central black hole sort of sets the tune for
the spiral? Akin to "everything" in the galaxy, from the tiniest dust
particle to the grandest star, and the smaller black holes, "feels" the
gravitational pull of the supermassive black hole at the center. It has
a hand in shaping the overall motion of everything within the galactic
disc. Fair enough?

On 4/7/2024 2:36 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 4/7/2024 2:31 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 3/18/2024 11:20 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>
>>> A hypothesis ....
>>>
>>> ... filling the space that is the agglomeration of what was their jet.
>>>
>>> So, are there gravitic singularities in the middle of galaxies?
>>> Maybe not.
>>>
>>> Are there gravitic filaments holding it all together?  Maybe not.
>>>
>>
>> Think of a giant center black hole, with smaller black holes wandering
>> the dust lanes of the galaxy. They are all connected, perhaps? Just
>> pondering here.
>
> The rotation of the massive central black hole sort of sets the tune for
> the spiral? Akin to "everything" in the galaxy, from the tiniest dust
> particle to the grandest star, and the smaller black holes, "feels" the
> gravitational pull of the supermassive black hole at the center. It has
> a hand in shaping the overall motion of everything within the galactic
> disc. Fair enough?

Think of a hyper giant central galaxy with thousands of "smaller"
galaxies orbiting it in deep space. The great attractor?

On 4/7/2024 2:36 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 4/7/2024 2:31 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 3/18/2024 11:20 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>
>>> A hypothesis ....
>>>
>>> ... filling the space that is the agglomeration of what was their jet.
>>>
>>> So, are there gravitic singularities in the middle of galaxies?
>>> Maybe not.
>>>
>>> Are there gravitic filaments holding it all together?  Maybe not.
>>>
>>
>> Think of a giant center black hole, with smaller black holes wandering
>> the dust lanes of the galaxy. They are all connected, perhaps? Just
>> pondering here.
>
> The rotation of the massive central black hole sort of sets the tune for
> the spiral? Akin to "everything" in the galaxy, from the tiniest dust
> particle to the grandest star, and the smaller black holes, "feels" the
> gravitational pull of the supermassive black hole at the center. It has
> a hand in shaping the overall motion of everything within the galactic
> disc. Fair enough?

I think that the great attractor might be local to us. Think if there
are other things out there that dwarf the great attractor?

On 2024-04-07 19:43:35 +0000, The Starmaker said:

>>
>> One does not simply _invoke_ Godwin's law, ....
>
> Godwin is a fraud, his fake law is a fraud. And he's a Democrat! and his
> wife is a Chink.
>
> The law is, there is no law.
>
>
> People with the word "God" in their name tend to think...they are God!
>
>
> I heard girls from Cambodia are hot.
>
>
> How old is his wife...13?

It's time to see if I can find space for you in my killfile. I don't
know why I didn't do it before.

--
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

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?

TH

W dniu 09.04.2024 o 08:47, Thomas Heger pisze:
> 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.

The ability of seeing is not the most important
ability of an observer. From the point of view
of physics - the most important ability of an
observer is his ability of creating, maintaining
and modifying physics, of course.
So, yes, everything in physics has a connection
to an observer.

Thomas Heger wrote:

> Am 05.04.2024 um 10:20 schrieb Mikko:
>> Everything in physics has a connection to an observer.
>
> This is a totally idiotic requirement.

no, YOU are just a fool, with no experience in physics, and apparently
unskilled in most things. Dr. Mikko is 100% correct. And it takes
apparently years decades of experience to realize that. Experience, not
bullshit in schools.

𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮_𝗹𝗮𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗵𝗲𝘀_𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗿𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗺_𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗲_𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼_𝗨𝗦_𝗮𝗻𝗱_𝗡𝗔𝗧𝗢_𝗼𝗳𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹𝘀
Moscow is following a trail from last month’s Crocus City Hall attack
https://www.%72%74.com/russia/595663-russia-terrorism-probe-us-nato/

It is a vast criminal network.

Probe of a thing that is clearly evident. Ask Victoria Nuland Kagan..
Remembering how Maidan started with terrorist attacks by hired Georgian
NATO terrorists who murdered Ukrainian civilians and policemen as to start
riots.

Good. Expose these men of evil.

Russia needs to bring these people into International security council
meetings and show world what Nato is really doing in Ukraine. Afterwards,
when the US denies it's involvement start real serious war in Ukraine that
takes out all transportation and all industry, power and any western
related businesses. Close off air space and declare war.

Finally the western satanic ilk now know there on notice, shine the light
upon evil & it will disappear!

Hunter says so what. Who cares. Him and zelinski will share some cocaine

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... ;^)

Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>
> 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... ;^)

"scheme"??? I don't see any plans at work here, do you? Nothing appears
to me to be..planned.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

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.
>
>

Waves are real, ....

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.

From this would follow, that we have entirely wrong views about the
universe, because far away also means long ago.

Now it doesn't make much sense to assume, that a foreground objects can
interact with something in the past, we explore entirely impossible
relations, if we try to figure out, how such relations function.

Now this is actually done by cosmologists, if they explore e.g. black
holes or gravity between galaxies.

But because it is impossible to remove that distortion caused by the
delay, cosmologists do, what they know it is wrong, because otherwise
they had nothing to do.

TH

On 4/9/2024 9:14 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>
>> 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... ;^)
>
>
> "scheme"??? I don't see any plans at work here, do you? Nothing appears
> to me to be..planned.
>
>
>

With regard to the big picture, our earth bound tech is damn near nothing?

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?

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

Am 10.04.2024 um 15:30 schrieb J. J. Lodder:

>>>>
>>>> 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,

Sure, the delay is known.

But how would you remove it?

The difference in time is actually HUGE, hence you would need to wait a
VERY long time, if you want to know the present position of stars seen a
few billion light years away.

In the meantime cosmologists explain the positions of stars, which do
not belong to the same time.

TH

Le 11/04/2024 à 10:51, Thomas Heger a écrit :
> Am 10.04.2024 um 15:30 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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,
>
> Sure, the delay is known.
>
> But how would you remove it?
>
> The difference in time is actually HUGE, hence you would need to wait a
> VERY long time, if you want to know the present position of stars seen a
> few billion light years away.

*facepalm*

Q. How to know what week day and month day will tomorrow be ?
A. Wait 24 hours, then look at your phone

> In the meantime cosmologists explain the positions of stars, which do
> not belong to the same time.

In the meantime cosmologists are not idiots, they know about physics
(while you do not).

W dniu 11.04.2024 o 13:08, Python pisze:
> Le 11/04/2024 à 10:51, Thomas Heger a écrit :
>> Am 10.04.2024 um 15:30 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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,
>>
>> Sure, the delay is known.
>>
>> But how would you remove it?
>>
>> The difference in time is actually HUGE, hence you would need to wait
>> a VERY long time, if you want to know the present position of stars
>> seen a few billion light years away.
>
> *facepalm*
>
> Q. How to know what week day and month day will tomorrow be ?

Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
and trying again to pretend he knows something.
Tell me, poor stinker, have you already learnt
what a function is? Are you still trying
to determine its properties applying a French
definition of a different word?