Are there any EU followers here with physics degrees?

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Are there any EU followers here with physics degrees?

Unread postby comingfrom » Wed Aug 02, 2017 7:43 am

My father often said, there are plenty of educated idiots in the world.
(He was a builder and had to deal with council inspectors who had degrees, but hadn't themselves ever built a thing in their life.)

But, then he was disappointed in me, that I didn't go on to get a degree.
He said, "You are smart enough, you could have been a doctor or a lawyer".
I replied, "And that's just it Dad. I am smart enough to see I don't want to be a degreed".
I could see even then, getting a degree locks you into conforming with whatever they feed you, for life.
Especially if your income depends upon it.

I set my own "university" courses. Have done all my life.
I'm well into doing my own physics course now.
And what I am learning from those with physics degrees here, is that their degree matters much more to them than humility, and the physics.

You degreed ones should be setting an example to the rest, how to conduct scientific debate.

If I had a degree, the way yous conduct yourselves and speak would make me feel ashamed of the degree.
Truly. I'd tear it up rather than be lumped together with the likes of Piggy and Higgsy here.
Paul
User avatar
comingfrom
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: Are there any EU followers here with physics degrees?

Unread postby Aardwolf » Wed Aug 02, 2017 8:38 am

Bob_Ham wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:No need. Galaxies don't rotate.

Hahahaha what?!?!
Ridicule? I assumed as one of our learned betters you had an open mind to new ideas. Oh well, I guess university education isn't what it purports to be.

Bob_Ham wrote:So how do you explain the measured Doppler effects?
Galaxies expand from the central point in a similar way to a Catherine Wheel. You get a much better Doppler fit if half the galaxy is moving toward the observer and half away, tilted toward observer in the direction of the redshift bands, and it explains why the speed is consistent from the centre outwards. No missing matter, so need for unobservable Dark Matter Theory. No galaxy winding problem, so need for unfathomable Density Wave Theory. Just very simply explained galaxy expansion. I'm sure William of Ockham would approve.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1110
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Are there any EU followers here with physics degrees?

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Wed Aug 02, 2017 9:34 am

Bob_Ham wrote:celeste, how do you propose galaxy rotation curves are solved by EU?


I can't speak for celeste, but I'd assume it's probably a combo of the fact our galaxy is sitting inside a gigantic halo of hot, and 'warm' plasma, and gas, most of which we knew nothing about until about 5 years ago. I suspect you've completely botched the stellar mass estimates of galaxies too as many studies over the past decade have verified. There's probably some EM influences that you're oblivious to as well. Mostly I'd say you just kludged the galaxy mass estimates something terrible.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15850

One thing that's quite clear is that the baryonic mass estimates that you were using in 2006 were a complete joke. You folks didn't find "proof" of dark matter in that bullet cluster study, you discovered that your baryonic mass estimates were atrocious and you refused to embrace that reality, so you just made up a metaphysics fudge factor and pretended that your galaxy mass estimates weren't the real problem. The other thing that's perfectly clear is that you folks have wasted *billions* of dollars on an invisible matter snipe hunt and you've found absolutely no evidence whatsoever of exotic forms of stable matter. It's obviously time to go back to the drawing board and update your horrifically flawed galaxy mass estimation techniques based on what we've learned over the past decade and stop wasting more money on your endless exotic matter snipe hunts. You can't do that however without your precious LCMD model falling completely apart.

In Celeste's case, I can see how her degree in physics is helpful as it relates to EU/PC theory. I don't think LCDM proponents actually deal with, or understand "physics" to start with so I don't know how your degree in physics actually helps your case. You actually dabble in *metaphysics* and placeholder terms for human ignorance to the tune of 95 percent of your belief systems, and the other 5 percent is mostly mathematical "pseudoscience" according to the Nobel Prize winning author of MHD theory. What then is the real tangible value of a "physics" degree if all you know how do with it is create mathematical models related to metaphysics and pseudoscience?
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Are there any EU followers here with physics degrees?

Unread postby BeAChooser » Wed Aug 02, 2017 10:36 am

Bob_Ham wrote:celeste, how do you propose galaxy rotation curves are solved by EU?


Bob, Bob, Bob ... where'd you go?

You're still ignoring my posts on filaments and helical winding.

Why?

Perhaps because you saw what happened to Higgsy?

:D

In any case, as to galaxy rotation curves, where have you been?

This has been repeatedly discussed.

There are two PC/EU possibilities that I know of, and there may be more.

The first possibiliity was provided by plasma physicist Anthony Peratt nearly 40 years ago. He used supercomputer facilities to simulate Alfvén and Fälthammar's concept of galaxies being formed by the interaction of parallel, current carrying, primordial plasma filaments. The filaments spun around each other until a spiral shape emerged. Peratt concluded that the shapes seen in the simulations appeared similar to observed galaxy shapes. Moreover, Peratt's spirals had qualitatively flat rotation curves, not unlike what we actually observe. Here’s a link to a paper describing that work ... http://plasmauniverse.info/downloadsCos ... TPS-II.pdf . And here are other articles by him on this topic: http://plasmauniverse.info/Perattpdf/Pe ... Cosmic.pdf , http://plasmauniverse.info/downloads/AdvancesI.pdf and http://plasmauniverse.info/downloads/AdvancesII.pdf .

As he stated in one article that was published in 2005,

When Plasma Physicists add known ElectroMagnetic Plasma effects into the Gravitational dynamics of Spiral Galaxies, they obtain the observed rotational dynamics of Spiral Galaxies. For scientifically published references, see the very extensive list below. Although EM Plasma Physics is well known and experimentally tested, the detailed calculations are very complex and require supercomputers that operate for months. There is no question that EM Plasma effects dominate the early formation of a Spiral Galaxy from an ionized plasma. As time progresses, matter is accreted into star formation. Then gravitational effects become stronger, as EM plasma effects become weaker as the inter-stellar plasma density decreases with time evolution. These effects are sufficiently complex that I can not describe them with simple arguments or simple mathematics. Supercomputers are necessary. ... snip ... PRIMARY REFERENCES. (1) “Physics of the Plasma Universe” by Anthony Peratt. (Springer-Verlag, 1992). ... snip ... (3) “Evolution of the Plasma Universe: I. Double Radio Galaxies, Quasars, and Extragalactic Jets”, A. L. Peratt, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. Vol. PS-14, N.6, pp.639-660, December 1986.(1.7M), (4) “Evolution of the Plasma Universe: II. The Formation of Systems of Galaxies”, A. L. Peratt, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. Vol. PS-14, N.6, pp.763-778, December 1986 (1.9M). In the above references, the evolution of galaxies from plasma inhomogeneities (which yield electric fields, currents and magnetic fields) is simulated. These calculations indicate a time evolution from Elliptical to Irregular to Spiral Galaxies.


He went on to state

Following are the measured velocity profiles for four specific Spiral Galaxies from Ref 4, Fig 14. “Velocity Profile” means the rotational speed of the spiral galaxy as measured from the center of the spiral galaxy. The peculiarities are that the rotational speed is very low at the galactic center and rises quickly to an approximately constant rotational speed away from the center. This is completely different than expected from gravitational forces alone. For instance, in the simplest Solar System model, the planets closest to the center rotate at the very fastest speeds, and gradually decrease in speed at larger distances from the center. ... snip ... Above is another measured velocity profile for a specific Spiral Galaxy (Ref 4, Fig 14), again with behavior completely different than anticipated from gravitational forces alone. Following is a computer simulation of the velocity profile for a Spiral Galaxy from Ref 4, Fig 14 including ElectroMagnetic Plasma effects. Notice the similarity of the measured velocity profiles with the computer simulation including ElectroMagnetic Plasma effects for these Spiral Galaxies. “The plasma core rotates very nearly as a solid body, while the spiral arms grow in length as they trail out along the magnetic isobars.” See Ref 4 for explicit details. The measured behavior is all very different than that obtained from gravitational effects alone, but the inclusion of ElectroMagnetic Plasma effects mimic the observed behavior. That is, the rotational speed is very low at the galactic center and rises very quickly to an approximately constant rotational speed at distances away from the center.


In short, Bob, dark matter isn't needed to explain the rotation curves of galaxies. And we've known it isn't needed for nearly 40 years. Ordinary electromagnetic physics combined with the gravity from ordinary matter can account for the observations. And many other observations. For example, do you know that the inner and outer halos of the Milky Way galaxy appear to be rotating in different directions: http://www.space.com/4738-huge-newfound ... tates.html ? I wonder if there isn't an electromagnetic explanation for that as well: http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2007/ ... gc4550.htm ? :D

And as Michael observed, the second possibility (or more likely one that combines with the first) is that mainstream physicists, at the time they dreamed up non-baryonic dark matter to explain spiral galaxy rotation curves, missed seeing most of the ordinary matter that is in galaxies as well as it's distribution in them. In recent years, we've learned this to be the case. They’ve now admitted they missed huge halos of plasma outside the more visible central parts of galaxies (http://phys.org/news/2015-10-vla-reveal ... piral.html ) and have missed much of the baryonic dark matter that is inside the central part. In fact, a recent study of quasar twinkling by mainstream astrophysicists led it’s authors to posit that they’ve overlooked half the plasma that is surrounding stars. Dark matter is not needed because there may be enough regular matter, distributed the way it needs to be, to account for spiral rotation curves. I’m surprised a physicist like you is not aware of these facts, Bob. :D

The hard, cold truth that you need to accept and acknowledge is that inferring that dark matter exists based on the rotational velocity observations was not good science. Never was. Never will be. After 40 years of all attempts to identify what constitutes dark matter having utterly failed and after 40 years of all attempts to detect this mysterious substance in the quantities needed having utterly failed, rational scientists would by now conclude that it does not exist. But Big Bang proponents have obstinately ignored the above work and refuse to abandon the notion of dark matter … because they've too much invested in the gnome … too many careers are at stake … too many reputations need protecting … too many of their wives like living in big homes ... too many of their children go to expensive colleges ... and, it's just human nature to defend a belief once it's been uttered.

But with every passing day it becomes clearer and clearer that explanations of rotation curves in galaxies don't require immense halos of dark matter. It's a natural process resulting from the physics that scientists like Maxwell and Langmuir and Alfven formalized long ago. When Big Bang proponents can't even acknowledge that fact, one grows more than a little skeptical of their claims regarding what can and cannot happen at cosmological scales. One grows skeptical when to explain most of the observations that have been made since the notion of Big Bang became dogma, they've had to invoke countless invisible, untestable, bizarre particles, forces, interactions and events to explain those observations. And now they have the gall to dismiss critics because they aren’t *degreed physicists*. Such an attitude is worthy of our contempt.

And, by the way, there is a third possibility as well ... one that's not part of PC/EU per se:

http://phys.org/news/2016-09-spiral-irr ... -dark.html

But the Big Bang, gnome loving community is fighting that one as well.
BeAChooser
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2015 7:24 pm

Re: Are there any EU followers here with physics degrees?

Unread postby Bob_Ham » Wed Aug 02, 2017 11:40 am

Aardwolf, if galaxies don't rotate (meaning the stars within galaxies don't orbit), then how do you propose the stars last for billions of years without collapsing toward the center? Without orbital motion, gravitational effects would cause stars to very quickly collide with one another. Any basic understanding of physics would make this immediately obvious. The idea that galaxies don't rotate is not in any way an employment of Ockham's razor.

This is why I'm looking for EU proponents with physics degrees (questioning you about your ridiculous claim was a mistake, as the point of this thread was to find EU proponents with degrees in physics, and discussing physics with you is clearly a waste of time, since you don't understand basics). Not all of those without degrees are completely ignorant of basic physics, and not all those with degrees fully understand the basics, but it is less likely that I'll have to sift through ridiculous claims if the people I'm talking to are better informed. I will await celeste's reply, since celeste is the only user so far to claim to have a physics degree and support EU.
User avatar
Bob_Ham
 
Posts: 78
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2017 6:06 pm

Re: Are there any EU followers here with physics degrees?

Unread postby BeAChooser » Wed Aug 02, 2017 1:29 pm

Bob_Ham wrote:Aardwolf, if galaxies don't rotate

Bob Bob Bob ... why are you ignoring my post and only responding to Aardwolf’s?

Bob_Ham wrote:I will await celeste's reply, since celeste is the only user so far to claim to have a physics degree and support EU.

And celeste's? PLUCK PLUCK PLUCK. For your information, Mr *DEGREED Physicist*, Anthony Peratt whose articles I linked in my post to you was also a DEGREED Physicist. Tell us, how many papers have you successfully gotten published, Bob? Hmmmm? I’m willing to bet that Peratt beat you in that regard. And I’m also willing to bet that he knows a whole lot more about rotation curves than you. In fact, what’s deeply illuminating is that you appeared to be completely ignorant of his work. Just saying. The truth is that our discussions so far prove you are ignorant of so much and you don’t even seem to be aware of it. And don’t want to learn. Instead, you hide behind a scrap of paper that tells you that you are soooooo *smart* … ironically awarded to you by people with equally sheltered existences.

And by the way, for all your reliance on gnomes, you have you no sense of humor and curiosity. Do you not realize that Aardwolf was just thinking outside the box as he often does? In various threads, he has stated exactly why galaxies might not rotate. I don’t agree with him but his argument isn't necessarily wrong. And if you want to argue that instead of all the other more mainstream ideas I’ve suggested to you, why don’t you hunt out one of those threads and challenge him. Here, let me help you … viewtopic.php?f=10&t=15138&start=15 . I'll go make popcorn. :D
BeAChooser
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2015 7:24 pm

Re: Are there any EU followers here with physics degrees?

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Wed Aug 02, 2017 1:32 pm

Bob_Ham wrote:I will await celeste's reply, since celeste is the only user so far to claim to have a physics degree and support EU.


Bob, I still have no idea why you believe that your physics degree is even relevant to the LCDM model when it's ninety five percent metaphysics and five percent pseudoscience. Do you also have a Phd in metaphysics & pseudoscience? If you actually "understood" the physics of the universe, you wouldn't be using placeholder terms for human ignorance to describe the vast majority of it. What good is your high and mighty degree in physics if you can't actually explain 95 percent of the universe? Can you even name a known source of "dark energy"?

What would you actually even be giving up in terms of knowledge of physics by embracing EU/PC theory over a cosmology theory that's mostly placeholder terms for human ignorance?
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Are there any EU followers here with physics degrees?

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Wed Aug 02, 2017 4:14 pm

Haha.. this thread gets funnier.
There are EU followers that have a physics degree (like me), but do not want to answer
all the questions. ;-)
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 699
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: Are there any EU followers here with physics degrees?

Unread postby Aardwolf » Wed Aug 02, 2017 6:16 pm

Bob_Ham wrote:Aardwolf, if galaxies don't rotate (meaning the stars within galaxies don't orbit), then how do you propose the stars last for billions of years without collapsing toward the center? Without orbital motion, gravitational effects would cause stars to very quickly collide with one another.
Only if you assume the gravitation effects dominate...which they don't. What did you expect at an EU forum?

Bob_Ham wrote:Any basic understanding of physics would make this immediately obvious. The idea that galaxies don't rotate is not in any way an employment of Ockham's razor.
However, to fit observations your theory requires amendments, adjustments, suspension of beliefs, unobservable matter, leaps of faith etc. To fit observations my theory states that the stars are simply ejected from the centre. Nothing else is required.

Bob_Ham wrote:This is why I'm looking for EU proponents with physics degrees (questioning you about your ridiculous claim was a mistake, as the point of this thread was to find EU proponents with degrees in physics, and discussing physics with you is clearly a waste of time, since you don't understand basics).
Yes of course, you need an echo chamber. Only Bob and his peers get to decide what the basics are. History has taught us only the gatekeepers of knowledge should get to discuss their faith amongst themselves. That's always worked for the best hasn't it? Mustn't allow independent thought to enter the realm of dogma you preside in. Better to stick your fingers in your ears than be exposed to the flimsy evidence of your entire paradigm. Unfortunately for you on this forum you can't instruct the moderators to banish me for heresy.

Bob_Ham wrote:Not all of those without degrees are completely ignorant of basic physics, and not all those with degrees fully understand the basics, but it is less likely that I'll have to sift through ridiculous claims if the people I'm talking to are better informed. I will await celeste's reply, since celeste is the only user so far to claim to have a physics degree and support EU.
So your refutation of my hypothesis is that you believe it to be "ignorant" and "ridiculous". Is that it? Is that what qualifies as pristine debate on campus these days? Are you going to even attempt to refute what I have stated or have you realised that the only empirical evidence you have of galaxy rotation is as dubious as the rest of gravitational theory.

By the way, are you going to respond on the other thread where you stated that the more precise a model the better it replicates reality, when in fact the paper you linked stated the exact opposite. I'll look forward to it, however, methinks you know less about the evidence supporting your basic physics knowledge than you really want to let on.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1110
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Are there any EU followers here with physics degrees?

Unread postby Bob_Ham » Wed Aug 02, 2017 9:10 pm

Aardwolf wrote:To fit observations my theory states that the stars are simply ejected from the centre. Nothing else is required.

That would not fit observations. If the stars are "simply ejected from the center," then all of the stars on the near half of a galaxy would be blueshifted. They are not. Half of those on the near half are redshifted, and the redshifted and blueshifted stars (and gas) are on opposite sides of the galaxy on the near side (like this). Also, we see that the stars directly along the line of sight on the near side are not blueshifted or redshifted with respect to the speed of the galaxy (the green region in the linked figure). This is just as one would expect for a rotating disk. In your model, these should be the stars with the largest blueshifted velocities. Your idea is directly contradicted by observation.
User avatar
Bob_Ham
 
Posts: 78
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2017 6:06 pm

Re: Are there any EU followers here with physics degrees?

Unread postby BeAChooser » Wed Aug 02, 2017 10:10 pm

Bob_Ham wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:To fit observations my theory states that the stars are simply ejected from the centre. Nothing else is required.

That would not fit observations. If the stars are "simply ejected from the center," then all of the stars on the near half of a galaxy would be blueshifted. They are not. Half of those on the near half are redshifted, and the redshifted and blueshifted stars (and gas) are on opposite sides of the galaxy on the near side (like this). Also, we see that the stars directly along the line of sight on the near side are not blueshifted or redshifted with respect to the speed of the galaxy (the green region in the linked figure). This is just as one would expect for a rotating disk. In your model, these should be the stars with the largest blueshifted velocities. Your idea is directly contradicted by observation.


Bob Bob Bob ... why are you ignoring me?

And why are so suddenly concerned about "observations"?

You don't seem to care about them where filaments and helical winding are concerned.

You don't seem to care about the failure to observe non-baryonic dark matter.

Just saying ...

:)
BeAChooser
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2015 7:24 pm

Re: Are there any EU followers here with physics degrees?

Unread postby Webbman » Thu Aug 03, 2017 7:15 am

comingfrom wrote:My father often said, there are plenty of educated idiots in the world.
(He was a builder and had to deal with council inspectors who had degrees, but hadn't themselves ever built a thing in their life.)

But, then he was disappointed in me, that I didn't go on to get a degree.
He said, "You are smart enough, you could have been a doctor or a lawyer".
I replied, "And that's just it Dad. I am smart enough to see I don't want to be a degreed".
I could see even then, getting a degree locks you into conforming with whatever they feed you, for life.
Especially if your income depends upon it.

I set my own "university" courses. Have done all my life.
I'm well into doing my own physics course now.
And what I am learning from those with physics degrees here, is that their degree matters much more to them than humility, and the physics.

You degreed ones should be setting an example to the rest, how to conduct scientific debate.

If I had a degree, the way yous conduct yourselves and speak would make me feel ashamed of the degree.
Truly. I'd tear it up rather than be lumped together with the likes of Piggy and Higgsy here.
Paul


since all equations have two sides you need to balance the knowledge gained from such endeavours with the agenda of those who so willingly supply that knowledge. The knowledge isn't always true and the agendas definitely aren't always in favor of your enlightenment.

makes good armies though. I imagine Bob come here for free to destroy Wals ideas even before he finished them.
The secret to the universe is a rubber band.
Webbman
 
Posts: 362
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 10:49 am

Re: Are there any EU followers here with physics degrees?

Unread postby celeste » Thu Aug 03, 2017 8:32 am

Bob_Ham wrote:celeste, how do you propose galaxy rotation curves are solved by EU?


Sorry for the delayed response.
The problem with the galactic rotation curves, is that we started trying to map the large scale motion, before we mapped enough of the smaller scale motions first. An analogy would be to imagine someone coming to our solar system, and trying to map the motion of all bodies, without making distinctions between planets and moons. One might get the idea that objects like Io and Europa, etc, are on more or less Keplerian elliptical orbits (they do orbit the sun at more or less the rate of Jupiter), but that they have some extra "bobbing" motion. Now you and I know that idea is crazy. Kepler's laws don't allow "bobbing motion". Nevertheless, that's where we were on the galactic scale back when I was an undergrad. The sun was on a gravitational elliptical orbit around the galactic center, just with a little extra "bobbing" up and down through the galactic plane. We had ruled out the sun as being part of a binary or other small system, and jumped right to an orbit around G.C. Later, there was a patch, that suggested basically the sun orbited the arm of the galaxy, while the arm itself orbitted the galaxy directly. That idea hinged on whether or not the arm was composed of the actual stars, or was merely a density wave passing through the stars. i.e., does the average motion of stars match the motion of the arm structure itself.
All this was before the discovery of Gould's Belt, and its rotation. This ring of stars of some 3000 light years diameter was found to be rotating. And rotating in a direction counter to that expected from galactic rotation. What is important here, is the discovery happened not by looking at star motions, and finding the ring, but by first "seeing" that the ring was a structure, and then matching the motion of stars to that. The question then becomes, is this ring really unique? Remember, the only reason we stumbled on this, was someone correctly matched these stars to a single structure. Gould's belt stars are hot blue stars (so they stand out), and the ring circles us (making the structure more apparent from our position). The assumption we have to make, if we want to stick with our galactic rotation curves, is that this "fluke" is not in fact a pattern.
More later.
celeste
 
Posts: 753
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:41 pm
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona

Re: Are there any EU followers here with physics degrees?

Unread postby Aardwolf » Thu Aug 03, 2017 9:59 am

Bob_Ham wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:To fit observations my theory states that the stars are simply ejected from the centre. Nothing else is required.

That would not fit observations. If the stars are "simply ejected from the center," then all of the stars on the near half of a galaxy would be blueshifted. They are not. Half of those on the near half are redshifted, and the redshifted and blueshifted stars (and gas) are on opposite sides of the galaxy on the near side (like this). Also, we see that the stars directly along the line of sight on the near side are not blueshifted or redshifted with respect to the speed of the galaxy (the green region in the linked figure). This is just as one would expect for a rotating disk. In your model, these should be the stars with the largest blueshifted velocities. Your idea is directly contradicted by observation.
First of all. You have no idea which way the galaxy is orientated so all of your statements above are merely assumptions. Your theory is ultimately driving what you wish to interpret which is ok but doesn't make it any more or less superior to my interpretation. Second, your image refutes what you have theorised. Toward the very centre of your image there are lighter blue and yellow/orange areas. This would signify at those regions the reduced blueshift/redshift equates to slower rotating stars. This is in direct contradiction of what is expected in gravitational theory. Near the centre the stars should at least be the same speed or even faster. They certainly shouldn’t be slower moving. Check the video below. Are they moving slower in the centre? I don't think so but maybe your closed mind will overrule your eyes.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AGalaxy_rotation_under_the_influence_of_dark_matter.ogv

Basically you see this which requires further absurd explanations regarding missing matter, winding problem etc.
Galaxy Rotation.jpg

I see this which has none of the problems associated with your theory and fits the image perfectly.
Galaxy Expansion.jpg
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1110
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Are there any EU followers here with physics degrees?

Unread postby Higgsy » Thu Aug 03, 2017 10:10 am

Maol wrote:Are we going to see the math, or just hear about it?

Where were you when I schooled Mozina on the physics of cooling in plasmas, and showed that his claim that the hot plasma halo around the galaxy would cool in "hours or days" was wrong by about ten orders of magnitude?
Higgsy
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:32 pm

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest