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.

On 03/18/2024 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.
>

Of course, it's rather ridiculous to consider that
there isn't a gravitic singularity, and all data rather
suggests that there are gravitic filaments.

So, instead, is introduced, the "gravific", that
_gravitic_ is pull-gravity, and _gravific_ a sort
of push-gravity, or, here, a fall-gravity.

In this manner the centrally symmetric center
of mass, the gravific singularity is still a gravitic black hole,
and the gravific filaments are still gravitic dark matter.

They have models mathematically either way the other,
just to establish that the center of mass of the galaxy,
is yet a sink, or attractor, while asymptotically free,
in the middle.

It is so then, to consider how the galaxy is "the remnant
of the contraction of the original impulse to its frame,
its space", to help explain why the black hole as a
phenomenon, as a singularity, is a multiplicity, and
that dark matter filaments, equipping the model
to reflect observation, are the metric.

"Space contraction" and "fall gravity", one's a great
result of a model of General Relativity, the other's
pretty much Quantum Gravity.

Here then that's basically about the scale of
galaxies, and pretty much the scale of atoms.

Those being the fundamental physical constants, ...,
measured by others.

It's a continuum mechanics.

Its herpes blisters.

Ross Finlayson schrieb:
> It's a continuum mechanics.
>
>

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.

Galaxies don't fly apart because they are held together by gravity.

Galaxies don't fly apart because they are...cells.

The next galaxy is just another cell...bounded.

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

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> Galaxies don't fly apart because they are held together by gravity.
>
> Galaxies don't fly apart because they are...cells.
>
> The next galaxy is just another cell...bounded.
>

I'll take it one step further...

Galaxies are cells, singularities cells.

Galaxies don't fly apart because they are held together by gravity....a
membrane of gravity.

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

On 03/19/2024 12:54 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> The Starmaker wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Galaxies don't fly apart because they are held together by gravity.
>>
>> Galaxies don't fly apart because they are...cells.
>>
>> The next galaxy is just another cell...bounded.
>>
>
> I'll take it one step further...
>
> Galaxies are cells, singularities cells.
>
>
> Galaxies don't fly apart because they are held together by gravity....a
> membrane of gravity.
>

Well, you see, the idea, is to explain two, or more,
things, at once.

So, "space contraction" and "fall gravity", then get
into how these gravitic and gravific, make for the
simplest super-classical model, that still arrives at
all the classical in the middle, as a sum-of-histories
sum-of-potentials, SSHP, that it's potential again
in the middle, the classical, the linear, singularity.

So, like black holes, and, dark matter, then you got,
dark energy. This is that "not only do galaxies not
fly apart, they drift apart", it's all one fall, helping unify
and unite the whole thing, because it's one physics.

Pioneer anomaly: Voyager's reached "beyond the
solar system", what an event. It's beyond the solar
system, out past the solar wind into the beyond
the rotating frame. They heard from Voyager
recently, and there's some hope it will reach to
us again.

Of course if you've ever watched Star Trek,
then there's NOMAD and then there's V-GER,
as from the episode with NOMAD, non-sequitur,
and the movie. One hopes that Voyager remains
a pretty great thing.

Fictitious forces? No, ..., real potential.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

"Membranes" or "branes" is usually about
string theory. String theory: twice as smaller
as atoms, smooth grain, it's a continuum mechanics.

"Quantum mechanics is never wrong:
it's a continuum mechanics."

So, "space contraction" and "fall gravity",
and "rest exchange", these are about I think
the greatest things to have a simplest theory,
that results from adding all up the
sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials,
all principled and theoretical.

It's a continuum mechanics, ....

On 03/19/2024 11:41 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 03/19/2024 12:54 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Galaxies don't fly apart because they are held together by gravity.
>>>
>>> Galaxies don't fly apart because they are...cells.
>>>
>>> The next galaxy is just another cell...bounded.
>>>
>>
>> I'll take it one step further...
>>
>> Galaxies are cells, singularities cells.
>>
>>
>> Galaxies don't fly apart because they are held together by gravity....a
>> membrane of gravity.
>>
>
>
>
> Well, you see, the idea, is to explain two, or more,
> things, at once.
>
> So, "space contraction" and "fall gravity", then get
> into how these gravitic and gravific, make for the
> simplest super-classical model, that still arrives at
> all the classical in the middle, as a sum-of-histories
> sum-of-potentials, SSHP, that it's potential again
> in the middle, the classical, the linear, singularity.
>
>
> So, like black holes, and, dark matter, then you got,
> dark energy. This is that "not only do galaxies not
> fly apart, they drift apart", it's all one fall, helping unify
> and unite the whole thing, because it's one physics.
>
>
> Pioneer anomaly: Voyager's reached "beyond the
> solar system", what an event. It's beyond the solar
> system, out past the solar wind into the beyond
> the rotating frame. They heard from Voyager
> recently, and there's some hope it will reach to
> us again.
>
> Of course if you've ever watched Star Trek,
> then there's NOMAD and then there's V-GER,
> as from the episode with NOMAD, non-sequitur,
> and the movie. One hopes that Voyager remains
> a pretty great thing.
>
> Fictitious forces? No, ..., real potential.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy
>
> "Membranes" or "branes" is usually about
> string theory. String theory: twice as smaller
> as atoms, smooth grain, it's a continuum mechanics.
>
> "Quantum mechanics is never wrong:
> it's a continuum mechanics."
>
> So, "space contraction" and "fall gravity",
> and "rest exchange", these are about I think
> the greatest things to have a simplest theory,
> that results from adding all up the
> sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials,
> all principled and theoretical.
>
> It's a continuum mechanics, ....
>
>
>
>
>

Boltzmann constant vis-a-vis speed of light, ....

Stacking up their derivations in terms of each
other, ..., they're two different constants, ....

Running constants. ....

Space contraction and rest-exchange, there's
that motion is always space contraction,
relaxation in its wake, simply balanced by
a universal gradient what results gravity: fall gravity.

Of course that's only relevant and a good hypothesis,
if all the other theories that can be not falsified,
and all the other data that is up to not uncertainty,
also agrees.

The "running constants" is a key concept,
in a world where it reflects dynamics at extremes.

This is vis-a-vis the "flux and flow", "re-flux",
as it were, the key concepts of super-classical
fluid and gas models as systems of exchange,
what make for the point, local, global, and total.

Mach, who didn't discover that the speed of
sound has a limit, but for whom is named it,
has a notion of Mach's principle, about the total.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach%27s_principle

"The proposition is that the existence of absolute rotation
(the distinction of local inertial frames vs. rotating
reference frames) is determined by the large-scale
distribution of matter [...]".

So, Mach's principle means various things, here
about for example what Einstein thinks about it,
vis-a-vis, how and why it is.

Also this sum-of-histories and sum-of-potentials
adds up all classical in the middle: what's how, and now.
(It is again history and potential.)

That it is so, ....

Am 18.03.2024 um 19:20 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
>
> 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.
>

My personal view on this problem:

galaxies are not held together by gravity and there is no need for
gravity, because the galaxies are not rotating in their own frame of
reference.

It is OUR !!! impression from a remote position, that galaxies rotate.

But seen from a comoving position from within that galaxy, the galaxies
(of course) don't rotate.

The specific view from our postion upon remote formations is caused by
our own local environment, which has a certain 'axis of time', while the
remote galaxy has its own, but which is tilted in respect to our time.

This causes the impression of rotation and the formation of 'jets'.

Why and how this is so can be seen in my 'book', which can be found here:

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing

TH

On 3/28/2024 2:12 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 18.03.2024 um 19:20 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> My personal view on this problem:
>
> galaxies are not held together by gravity and there is no need for
> gravity, because the galaxies are not rotating in their own frame of
> reference.
>
> It is OUR !!! impression from a remote position, that galaxies rotate.
>
> But seen from a comoving position from within that galaxy, the galaxies
> (of course) don't rotate.
>
Rotation is absolute. If a galaxy is rotating, that it is rotating can
be detected either from within or without the galaxy.

On 03/27/2024 11:29 PM, Volney wrote:
> On 3/28/2024 2:12 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 18.03.2024 um 19:20 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> My personal view on this problem:
>>
>> galaxies are not held together by gravity and there is no need for
>> gravity, because the galaxies are not rotating in their own frame of
>> reference.
>>
>> It is OUR !!! impression from a remote position, that galaxies rotate.
>>
>> But seen from a comoving position from within that galaxy, the
>> galaxies (of course) don't rotate.
>>
> Rotation is absolute. If a galaxy is rotating, that it is rotating can
> be detected either from within or without the galaxy.

I suppose that's Lambda Cold CDM, about 0.85,
up from 0.5, going up to .9, .95?

Holding it together, the more the sky survey
maps, up to Lambda 1.0?

It's a great explanation because it keeps the data all
added up, but it sort of results a universe full of
stuff that can't be shown to exist, that by definition,
doesn't exist.

It's a great explanation unless you think that it sort
of requires a great new explanation of the great old explanation.

It really doesn't change much at all to make it so that
rotating frames are independent, it doesn't much change
classical mechanics and it doesn't much change relativistic
dynamics, the theories. It can change a lot usual blind
followers mistaken extrapolations, but, considering that
their entire theory is growing to be approximately 100%
"doesn't exist", don't you think it's sort of, un-scientific?

In the old days instead of dark matter we had curved or
warped space-time. Well, the sky survey came up with
that the universe is pretty definitely isotropic, so
what was invented instead of space being warped everywhere,
was a theory of invisible mass, dark matter, an imaginary material.

So anyways these days "it's definitely that the galaxies
aren't flying apart, which without these blind peoples'
extra perceived blindness, would just be a yawning gulf
demanding explanation". Like independent rotating frames.

Pretty much though it starts with that classical mechanics
needs a sort of re-combination, like independent rotating frames.

I.e., classical mechanics much simpler than usual solar
systems and galaxies and other large, though sparse, and
rotating systems, has a thorough under-defined surrounds.

Am 28.03.2024 um 07:29 schrieb Volney:
> On 3/28/2024 2:12 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 18.03.2024 um 19:20 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> My personal view on this problem:
>>
>> galaxies are not held together by gravity and there is no need for
>> gravity, because the galaxies are not rotating in their own frame of
>> reference.
>>
>> It is OUR !!! impression from a remote position, that galaxies rotate.
>>
>> But seen from a comoving position from within that galaxy, the
>> galaxies (of course) don't rotate.
>>
> Rotation is absolute. If a galaxy is rotating, that it is rotating can
> be detected either from within or without the galaxy.

'Absolute' is a dangerous term in cosmology, because relativity says,
that space itself is not absolute.

IOW: relativity requires a reference to something, if you like to define
movement (in respect to that something).

Space itself cannot be used, because relativity says, that absolute
space does not exist.

So, something else is required.

But what shall we take???

I assume, that the observer can be used and actually is used as 'base',
from where the universe is observed.

But that would make it impossible to measure the state of motion of the
observer, because the observer does not move in repect to himself.

If now the observer rotates (unknowingly) he would see the universe
rotating the other way round.

Since what we call 'universe' is only a subset of 'everything in
existence', there are possibly 'sub-universes', which seemingly rotate,
while that rotation is only an optical illusion, caused by the movements
of the observer and the finite speed of light.

TH

Den 29.03.2024 08:51, skrev Thomas Heger:
> I assume, that the observer can be used and actually is used as 'base',
> from where the universe is observed.
>
> But that would make it impossible to measure the state of motion of the
> observer, because the observer does not move in repect to himself.

Never heard about gyroscopes and accelerometers?

>
> If now the observer rotates (unknowingly) he would see the universe
> rotating the other way round.
>
> Since what we call 'universe' is only a subset of 'everything in
> existence', there are possibly 'sub-universes', which seemingly rotate,
> while that rotation is only an optical illusion, caused by the movements
> of the observer and the finite speed of light.
>
>
> TH

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

W dniu 29.03.2024 o 10:41, Paul B. Andersen pisze:
> Den 29.03.2024 08:51, skrev Thomas Heger:
>> I assume, that the observer can be used and actually is used as
>> 'base', from where the universe is observed.
>>
>> But that would make it impossible to measure the state of motion of
>> the observer, because the observer does not move in repect to himself.
>
> Never heard about gyroscopes and accelerometers?

Never heard about the elevator of your idiot guru?

On 03/28/2024 09:38 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 03/27/2024 11:29 PM, Volney wrote:
>> On 3/28/2024 2:12 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am 18.03.2024 um 19:20 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> My personal view on this problem:
>>>
>>> galaxies are not held together by gravity and there is no need for
>>> gravity, because the galaxies are not rotating in their own frame of
>>> reference.
>>>
>>> It is OUR !!! impression from a remote position, that galaxies rotate.
>>>
>>> But seen from a comoving position from within that galaxy, the
>>> galaxies (of course) don't rotate.
>>>
>> Rotation is absolute. If a galaxy is rotating, that it is rotating can
>> be detected either from within or without the galaxy.
>
> I suppose that's Lambda Cold CDM, about 0.85,
> up from 0.5, going up to .9, .95?
>
> Holding it together, the more the sky survey
> maps, up to Lambda 1.0?
>
> It's a great explanation because it keeps the data all
> added up, but it sort of results a universe full of
> stuff that can't be shown to exist, that by definition,
> doesn't exist.
>
> It's a great explanation unless you think that it sort
> of requires a great new explanation of the great old explanation.
>
> It really doesn't change much at all to make it so that
> rotating frames are independent, it doesn't much change
> classical mechanics and it doesn't much change relativistic
> dynamics, the theories. It can change a lot usual blind
> followers mistaken extrapolations, but, considering that
> their entire theory is growing to be approximately 100%
> "doesn't exist", don't you think it's sort of, un-scientific?
>
> In the old days instead of dark matter we had curved or
> warped space-time. Well, the sky survey came up with
> that the universe is pretty definitely isotropic, so
> what was invented instead of space being warped everywhere,
> was a theory of invisible mass, dark matter, an imaginary material.
>
> So anyways these days "it's definitely that the galaxies
> aren't flying apart, which without these blind peoples'
> extra perceived blindness, would just be a yawning gulf
> demanding explanation". Like independent rotating frames.
>
>
> Pretty much though it starts with that classical mechanics
> needs a sort of re-combination, like independent rotating frames.
>
> I.e., classical mechanics much simpler than usual solar
> systems and galaxies and other large, though sparse, and
> rotating systems, has a thorough under-defined surrounds.
>
>

Here is a podcast, I have been talking about the classical mechanics,
and about the underdefined state of classical mechanics, and
getting notions like "classical walk integral" and
"dimensional/dimensionless resonator/alternator",
in a mathematical and dimensional analysis.

Moment and Motion: order and direction

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axmvT_VRBns&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F4eHy5vT61UYFR7_BIhwcOY&index=33

Acceleration, infinity, language of numbers, orders, infinity and the
mind, infinity and infinitesimals, real analytical character and
measure, angle-making and turn-making, rotating frame and rotational
frame, dimensional analysis, g-forces, g's and derivatives, units of
inertia, areal terms and path terms, space-frames and frame-spaces, the
non-linear and the un-linear, dimensional resonator, multi-pole moment,
order and direction, m/s and s/m, dimensionless terms, dimensional
alternator, kinematics, Galileo and Lorentz, path integral and walk
integral, rotation and path-following, operators and quantities, forward
units and turning units, definitions, inertia in motion, linear units,
unit force, quantum amplitudes, Stern-Gerlach, base states and
coordinate settings, quantum momentum, Stern-Gerlach apparatus, spin
one, beam splitting, van de Graaf generator, beam filtering,
polarization and phase, Stern-Gerlach type, improved Stern-Gerlach, wave
guide, cone angle, base state as continuous quantum state, dimensionless
resonator, kinetics and kinematics.

Am 29.03.2024 um 11:33 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
> W dniu 29.03.2024 o 10:41, Paul B. Andersen pisze:
>> Den 29.03.2024 08:51, skrev Thomas Heger:
>>> I assume, that the observer can be used and actually is used as
>>> 'base', from where the universe is observed.
>>>
>>> But that would make it impossible to measure the state of motion of
>>> the observer, because the observer does not move in repect to himself.
>>
>> Never heard about gyroscopes and accelerometers?
>
> Never heard about the elevator of your idiot guru?
>
If the observer rotates (unknowingly) and observes a scenery with
significant depth, he would see that scene as a spiral vortex.

This is so because light has a finite velocity and further away means
longer ago.

If there is an overlaying forground rotation, the background structure
would become distorted to a vortex (even if it isn't).

Now cosmologists have a wellknown habit to ignore the delay caused by
the finite speed of light, hence tend to take the observed image for
real and make no attempts to compensate the delay.

This is actually, what I had criticised in Einstein's 'On the
electrodynamics of moving bodies' several times, too, because Einstein
didn't even mention the delay and made not effort to eliminate its effects.

In cosmology the problem is much more obvious, but cosmologists make not
attempts to compensate this effect, neither.

Instead they are looking for the cause of rotation of the vortex
structure (what is rather silly).

TH

Le 30/03/2024 à 18:36, Thomas Heger a écrit :
> Am 29.03.2024 um 11:33 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
>> W dniu 29.03.2024 o 10:41, Paul B. Andersen pisze:
>>> Den 29.03.2024 08:51, skrev Thomas Heger:
>>>> I assume, that the observer can be used and actually is used as
>>>> 'base', from where the universe is observed.
>>>>
>>>> But that would make it impossible to measure the state of motion of
>>>> the observer, because the observer does not move in repect to himself.
>>>
>>> Never heard about gyroscopes and accelerometers?
>>
>> Never heard about the elevator of your idiot guru?
>>
> If the observer rotates (unknowingly) and observes a scenery with
> significant depth, he would see that scene as a spiral vortex.
>
> This is so because light has a finite velocity and further away means
> longer ago.
>
> If there is an overlaying forground rotation, the background structure
> would become distorted to a vortex (even if it isn't).
>
> Now cosmologists have a wellknown habit to ignore the delay caused by
> the finite speed of light, hence tend to take the observed image for
> real and make no attempts to compensate the delay.
>
> This is actually, what I had criticised in Einstein's 'On the
> electrodynamics of moving bodies' several times, too, because Einstein
> didn't even mention the delay and made not effort to eliminate its effects.
>
> In cosmology the problem is much more obvious, but cosmologists make not
> attempts to compensate this effect, neither.
>
> Instead they are looking for the cause of rotation of the vortex
> structure (what is rather silly).
>
>
> TH

That the speed of light varies with that of the emitter is most clearly
shown by the Doppler effect.
f(v)=(c+v)/wavelength_which_is_fixed
The MMI experiment null result shows that the speed of light varies with
that of the emitter, and not the other way around. For the equipment moves
on the moving Earth. I gave details back in 2005, in articles published
in Usenet and on my website. Of course, no physics journal will publish
that!

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

****

The violation of inertia with a new design rail gun in motor mode
Arindam Banerjee,
HTN Research Pty Ltd. Melbourne
10 Nov 2023
(All rights reserved)

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/VtFeGAkIABg/m/CLPzLRElAwAJ

***

Experiments (2022) showing my invention of a new kind of rail gun
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYtyOMbgiZ0

Which is improved upon in, and its potential for ejecting matter into near
space , and horizontal tunneling shown in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6pjy0Wvujs&t=19s

and the following shows how a new class of linear motor violating inertia
can be developed by arresting the momentum of the armature and imparting
that to the whole system, giving it an increased velocity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idsIuzEajTc&t=2s

*****

Introduction to "A New Look Towards the Principles of Motion"
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/1wmee5C8mFs/kJMPdnFkAwAJ

Section 1
Linear Motion, Momentum, Force, Energy, Internal Force Engines, and the
design of Interstellar Spacecraft
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/GbpQC3a2d1Q/jSXQeb9kAwAJ

Section 1 (contd.)
Linear Motion, Momentum, Force, Energy, Internal Force Engines, and the
design of Interstellar Spacecraft
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/P9ZiinIDhHU/ZtMQVyliBQAJ

Section 2
The Creation and Destruction of Energy
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/wY6_9V8ucSY/3nnJQk9iBQAJ

Section 3
The Structure of Heavenly Bodies
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/8jH-SQIFFDo/O1jn3HpiBQAJ

Section 4
The Nature of Explosion
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/7TkOVZigFHg/uv43_aZiBQAJ

Section 5
The forces involved in rotational motion
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/jhgcsTq-NrQ/ZBwG8S9jBQAJ

*******

2017 videos of rail gun experiments with theory in detail

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqBfwAClVlg
IFE - 1 Ground Experiments

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9eGq4Oiv9s
IFE - 2 Experimental setups

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3hC48BMrno
IFE - 3 Pendulum experiments

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sSPxGsLkws
IFE - 4 Evolution of spaceship

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJdM6UDPauU
IFE - 5 Hydrogen Transmission Network

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUAcx7rAplc
IFE - 6 Spaceship Design

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5Zbpvc3fdA
IFE - 7 Anti-Gravity

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA9LUwqMhxY
IFE - 8 New Physics

****
The physics aphorisms of Arindam
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/8HgH3sbRe94/m/gYzu9OAkAgAJ

The cause of gravity
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/mmigkl3yZYc/m/8Rs16NCXAAAJ

Explaining the nova and supernova phenomena with new physics theories - 1
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/6UIGDNHH7n0/m/U0t-kYqgAAAJ

Explaining the nova and supernova phenomena with new physics theories - 2
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/CffbGTXV72c/m/5ONP6J6gAAAJ

*****

On 3/29/2024 3:51 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 28.03.2024 um 07:29 schrieb Volney:
>> On 3/28/2024 2:12 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am 18.03.2024 um 19:20 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> My personal view on this problem:
>>>
>>> galaxies are not held together by gravity and there is no need for
>>> gravity, because the galaxies are not rotating in their own frame of
>>> reference.
>>>
>>> It is OUR !!! impression from a remote position, that galaxies rotate.
>>>
>>> But seen from a comoving position from within that galaxy, the
>>> galaxies (of course) don't rotate.
>>>
>> Rotation is absolute. If a galaxy is rotating, that it is rotating can
>> be detected either from within or without the galaxy.
>
> 'Absolute' is a dangerous term in cosmology, because relativity says,
> that space itself is not absolute.
>
Rotation is absolute in that a rotating frame has a pseudoforce, and
Newton's Laws don't hold. This cannot be compensated by assuming the
frame is not rotating and the rest of the universe is rotating in the
opposite direction.

On 03/30/2024 05:35 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> Le 30/03/2024 à 18:36, Thomas Heger a écrit :
>> Am 29.03.2024 um 11:33 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
>>> W dniu 29.03.2024 o 10:41, Paul B. Andersen pisze:
>>>> Den 29.03.2024 08:51, skrev Thomas Heger:
>>>>> I assume, that the observer can be used and actually is used as
>>>>> 'base', from where the universe is observed.
>>>>>
>>>>> But that would make it impossible to measure the state of motion of
>>>>> the observer, because the observer does not move in repect to himself.
>>>>
>>>> Never heard about gyroscopes and accelerometers?
>>>
>>> Never heard about the elevator of your idiot guru?
>>>
>> If the observer rotates (unknowingly) and observes a scenery with
>> significant depth, he would see that scene as a spiral vortex.
>>
>> This is so because light has a finite velocity and further away means
>> longer ago.
>>
>> If there is an overlaying forground rotation, the background structure
>> would become distorted to a vortex (even if it isn't).
>>
>> Now cosmologists have a wellknown habit to ignore the delay caused by
>> the finite speed of light, hence tend to take the observed image for
>> real and make no attempts to compensate the delay.
>>
>> This is actually, what I had criticised in Einstein's 'On the
>> electrodynamics of moving bodies' several times, too, because Einstein
>> didn't even mention the delay and made not effort to eliminate its
>> effects.
>>
>> In cosmology the problem is much more obvious, but cosmologists make
>> not attempts to compensate this effect, neither.
>>
>> Instead they are looking for the cause of rotation of the vortex
>> structure (what is rather silly).
>>
>>
>> TH
>
> That the speed of light varies with that of the emitter is most clearly
> shown by the Doppler effect.
> f(v)=(c+v)/wavelength_which_is_fixed
> The MMI experiment null result shows that the speed of light varies with
> that of the emitter, and not the other way around. For the equipment
> moves on the moving Earth. I gave details back in 2005, in articles
> published in Usenet and on my website. Of course, no physics journal
> will publish that!
>
> Cheers,
> Arindam Banerjee
>

No, that's just the rate of received otherwise constant impulses,
non-relativistically, Doppler. The light travels freely from
where it is emitted, instant by instant, as from the moving image
of the moving source, continuously.

Information in this sense is free as in flux, while metered,
while the emitter of the information is the source first,
then the image.

Of course any rotating system develops its own coordinate setting.

Volney wrote:
>
> On 3/29/2024 3:51 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > Am 28.03.2024 um 07:29 schrieb Volney:
> >> On 3/28/2024 2:12 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>> Am 18.03.2024 um 19:20 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
> >>>>
> >>>> 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.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> My personal view on this problem:
> >>>
> >>> galaxies are not held together by gravity and there is no need for
> >>> gravity, because the galaxies are not rotating in their own frame of
> >>> reference.
> >>>
> >>> It is OUR !!! impression from a remote position, that galaxies rotate.
> >>>
> >>> But seen from a comoving position from within that galaxy, the
> >>> galaxies (of course) don't rotate.
> >>>
> >> Rotation is absolute. If a galaxy is rotating, that it is rotating can
> >> be detected either from within or without the galaxy.
> >
> > 'Absolute' is a dangerous term in cosmology, because relativity says,
> > that space itself is not absolute.
> >
> Rotation is absolute in that a rotating frame has a pseudoforce, and
> Newton's Laws don't hold. This cannot be compensated by assuming the
> frame is not rotating and the rest of the universe is rotating in the
> opposite direction.

galaxies rotate to keep other galaxies from getting too close.

the universe doesn't rotate, it is Space that rotates.

space is 'within' the universe.

the universe created God
God found himself in a Space
God created the heavens and
the earth 'in' that space, and
God was killed
in the explosion.

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

Le 30/03/2024 à 08:41, Thomas Heger a écrit :
....
> Now cosmologists have a wellknown habit to ignore the delay caused by
> the finite speed of light, hence tend to take the observed image for
> real and make no attempts to compensate the delay.

"wellknown"? Quite the opposite. This is something you made up (as
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 the
> electrodynamics of moving bodies' several times, too, because Einstein
> didn't even mention the delay and made not effort to eliminate its effects.

This is wrong. He did actually that in part I.1 in 1905 article as
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 make not
> attempts to compensate this effect, neither.

This is also wrong.

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 vortex
> structure (what is rather silly).

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.

Am 30.03.2024 um 18:50 schrieb Python:
> Le 30/03/2024 à 08:41, Thomas Heger a écrit :
> ...
>> Now cosmologists have a wellknown habit to ignore the delay caused by
>> the finite speed of light, hence tend to take the observed image for
>> real and make no attempts to compensate the delay.
>
> "wellknown"? Quite the opposite. This is something you made up (as
> 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 the
>> electrodynamics of moving bodies' several times, too, because Einstein
>> didn't even mention the delay and made not effort to eliminate its
>> effects.
>
> This is wrong. He did actually that in part I.1 in 1905 article as
> 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 make
>> not attempts to compensate this effect, neither.
>
> This is also wrong.
>
> 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 vortex
>> structure (what is rather silly).
>
> 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).

This would cause an apparent rotation of the vortex, while actually the
foreground rotates, because a rotating observer would see remote stars
at a different position than not so remote stars (still far away).

Since depth in space is difficult to measure, it is an understandable
error to ascribe the same depth to stars in a vortex formation, even if
the central stars are much further away.

If now a structure with very large depth is 'flattened' to the image of
such a structure, the question would arise, why that structure does not
fly apart, if it rotates that fast.

The answer would be: because the observer rotates and not the vortex.

TH

On 2024-03-31 06:32:40 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

> Am 30.03.2024 um 18:50 schrieb Python:
>> Le 30/03/2024 à 08:41, Thomas Heger a écrit :
>> ...
>>> Now cosmologists have a wellknown habit to ignore the delay caused by
>>> the finite speed of light, hence tend to take the observed image for
>>> real and make no attempts to compensate the delay.
>>
>> "wellknown"? Quite the opposite. This is something you made up (as
>> 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 the
>>> electrodynamics of moving bodies' several times, too, because Einstein
>>> didn't even mention the delay and made not effort to eliminate its
>>> effects.
>>
>> This is wrong. He did actually that in part I.1 in 1905 article as
>> 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 make
>>> not attempts to compensate this effect, neither.
>>
>> This is also wrong.
>>
>> 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 vortex
>>> structure (what is rather silly).
>>
>> 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?

--
Mikko

Volney wrote:

> On 3/29/2024 3:51 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> 'Absolute' is a dangerous term in cosmology, because relativity says,
>> that space itself is not absolute.
>>
> Rotation is absolute in that a rotating frame has a pseudoforce, and
> Newton's Laws don't hold. This cannot be compensated by assuming the
> frame is not rotating and the rest of the universe is rotating in the
> opposite direction.

this is not true. Any fucking country doing business with, or supporting,
the fictitious pissrael, is guilty of war crimes and genocide. Period.

𝗗𝗲𝗰𝗲𝗽𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲_𝗕𝗮𝗿𝗯𝗮𝗿𝗮_𝗕𝘂𝘀𝗵_𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝘃𝗼𝗶𝗰𝗲_𝗼𝗳_𝗮_𝗺𝗮𝗻_𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗸𝘀_𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁_𝗖𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗮!!!
https://www.b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/2tbGETUJKsDe/

fucking country of homos, from head to tail.

On 03/31/2024 01:49 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-03-31 06:32:40 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>
>> Am 30.03.2024 um 18:50 schrieb Python:
>>> Le 30/03/2024 à 08:41, Thomas Heger a écrit :
>>> ...
>>>> Now cosmologists have a wellknown habit to ignore the delay caused by
>>>> the finite speed of light, hence tend to take the observed image for
>>>> real and make no attempts to compensate the delay.
>>>
>>> "wellknown"? Quite the opposite. This is something you made up (as
>>> 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 the
>>>> electrodynamics of moving bodies' several times, too, because Einstein
>>>> didn't even mention the delay and made not effort to eliminate its
>>>> effects.
>>>
>>> This is wrong. He did actually that in part I.1 in 1905 article as
>>> 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 make
>>>> not attempts to compensate this effect, neither.
>>>
>>> This is also wrong.
>>>
>>> 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 vortex
>>>> structure (what is rather silly).
>>>
>>> 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?
>

You know, according to usual models of gravity,
it must be so in the Solar System, that the
usual classical force of gravity, always points
at the source, not the image, of the massy body.

So "The System of the World" already is something,
"never seen", except by the mind's eye as it were
of the practicing theoretical physicist, then that
there's science about it and it's always science.

About galaxies, deeper in the space, basically,
yet as well with regards to our solar system and
its near and far fields, it's long been known
that they don't much have as being a rotating
frame as a stationary frame, that the frame and
its space and its setting is an independent rotating
frame, as these things are.

Or, you can close your eyes but you can't close
your ears, if you've heard of dark matter, then
all that is a non-scientific hypothetical thing
to keep otherwise the theory from being just wrong.

Nobody's ever "seen" an atom.

Another proponent of vortices was DesCartes, after
atomism, he basically ascribes atoms a central moment,
it's very familiar with quantum mechanics and the
notion of "spin one", today.

Zeeman, Coriolis, Cerenkov, Compton, Casimir, Coulomb,
Stern-Gerlach apparatus, Einstein's attack on Newton,
if you've never heard about these things and their
relations to classical and relativistic and quantum
mechanics as a theory of sum potentials,
I imagine you're not much looking.

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.

Interesting are phenomenons which exist, whether they are visible or not.

E.g. a ship on the other side of the planet cannot be seen from here or
the other side of the Moon.

But both do exist.

Visibility, usefulness or other categories of this kind, which reflect a
connection to the observer, are irrelevant in physics.

They are important for you, however, but you are not important for physics.

TH