From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 03/31/2024 01:42 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

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.

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2