It's a continuum mechanics.
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.
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.
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.
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.
On 3/28/2024 2:12 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 18.03.2024 um 19:20 schrieb Ross Finlayson:Rotation is absolute. If a galaxy is rotating, that it is rotating can
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.
be detected either from within or without the galaxy.
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?
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?
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:Rotation is absolute. If a galaxy is rotating, that it is rotating can
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.
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.
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:Rotation is absolute. If a galaxy is rotating, that it is rotating can
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.
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.
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).
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).
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?
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.
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".
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?
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.
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.
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... ;^)
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... ;^)
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.
Le 10/04/2024 07:00, Thomas Heger a crit :
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?
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,
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.
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 ?
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?
Le 11/04/2024 à 18:13, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
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?
Don't be jealous, Maciej. You are as stupid as Thomas, even if
a different way.
W dniu 11.04.2024 o 19:10, Python pisze:
Don't be jealous, Maciej. You are as stupid as Thomas, even if
a different way.
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?
Another way to conclude that your claim is absurd is to consider the trajectory
of the
accelerated twin from the point of view of the inertial one.
It has been pointed out by numerous people.
Le 11/04/2024 à 21:03, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 11.04.2024 o 19:10, Python pisze:
Don't be jealous, Maciej. You are as stupid as Thomas, even if
a different way.
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?
Can you explain to Python that if he really wanted to understand the theory of
relativity, he would start by setting To²=Tr²+Et² for all frames of reference.
And he wouldn't deviate an inch from it.
However, he does not admit this for accelerated frames of reference, and when I
write: "If two different observers use an identical path, in identical observable
times, their proper times will be identical", he claims that I am sabotaging the
very bases of the theory of relativity.
Le 11/04/2024 à 23:55, Python a écrit :
Another way to conclude that your claim is absurd is to consider the trajectory
of the
accelerated twin from the point of view of the inertial one.
From the point of view of the inertial twin (I think you mean the twin in uniform Galilean motion), the trajectory of the accelerated twin is a joint state,
a gradual deceleration, a steady state, a gradual re-acceleration and finally a
joint state .
Between the two conjoined states, the proper times will be identical.
From the perspective of the accelerated twin, the trajectory of the Galilean twin is a joint state, a gradual deceleration, a steady state, a gradual re-acceleration and finally a joint state.
Between the two conjoined states, the proper elapsed times will be identical.
It has been pointed out by numerous people.
Absolutely not.
Le 11/04/2024 à 23:06, Richard Hachel a écrit :
Le 11/04/2024 à 21:03, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 11.04.2024 o 19:10, Python pisze:
Don't be jealous, Maciej. You are as stupid as Thomas, even if
a different way.
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?
Can you explain to Python that if he really wanted to understand the
theory of relativity, he would start by setting To²=Tr²+Et² for all
frames of reference.
And he wouldn't deviate an inch from it.
However, he does not admit this for accelerated frames of reference,
and when I write: "If two different observers use an identical path,
in identical observable times, their proper times will be identical",
he claims that I am sabotaging the very bases of the theory of
relativity.
It is quite obvious because when you talk about "identical paths" you
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).
Am Donnerstag000011, 11.04.2024 um 13:08 schrieb Python:
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
You should hit a little harder, because it's not just weaks nor even
years you need to wait.
To measure the position of a star in one billion light years distance
you need to wait a billion years, before you can actually see the light emitted from that star.
Because that is impossible, we simply don't know to were those stars
went in the meantime.
We know that stars move around in the universe, but cannot tell, to were
they went in the unobserved time of the last billion years.
It is therefore entirely pointless to figure out gravity between
forground and background stars.
It may evetually be possible, to make plausible predictions about their future fate. But to do so, we would need to know, what cosmologists
actually try to figure out: the influence of gravity by other objects.
On 4/11/2024 10:45 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
[...]
To measure the position of a star in one billion light years distance
you need to wait a billion years, before you can actually see the light
emitted from that star.
Because that is impossible, we simply don't know to were those stars
went in the meantime.
Think of taking a look at a star A that is say, 100 light years from
Earth. Now, look at some other stars around it and try to create a
little map. Okay, now jump to the star A right now. Well, that star is
most likely to be in a radically different place, or even dead via
supernova we have had a chance to detect yet. The map is going to be meaningless.
[...]
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 489 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 24:05:05 |
| Calls: | 9,665 |
| Files: | 13,716 |
| Messages: | 6,168,299 |