Sure, which is why I saidDidn't say or suggest it was.
The point was there is nothing regarding the Gravitational equations, nor any EM functions, that are needed to be known to determine an orbit.its not your statement of course
Sure, which is why I saidDidn't say or suggest it was.
The point was there is nothing regarding the Gravitational equations, nor any EM functions, that are needed to be known to determine an orbit.its not your statement of course
Does anyone have a degree in numerology?comingfrom wrote:Don't listen to anything anyone says unless they have a degree..
So are you retracting your lols? Your comment tried to infer I had made a ridiculous claim.Bob_Ham wrote:You don't need to be in the same plane for redshift/blueshift rotation effects either. I was showing you the simplest possible case because it was easier to illustrate.Aardwolf wrote:I’m not stating the observer is in the same plane. You don’t need to be in the same plane for blueshift/redshift expansion effects.
To a certain extent yes but data is not perfect so no doubt there will be oddities (just as there are for your theory). However, the comment about top and bottom is meaningless. Galaxies could be at any angle. Left and right would result in the same data just offset 90 degrees.Bob_Ham wrote:According to what you're suggesting, the data should always be aligned with our line of sight such that the front edge of any spiral galaxy (with top pointing upward and bottom pointing downward) will always be blueshifted, the back edge will always be redshifted, and there will always be a horizontal line of zero relative velocity through the middle.Aardwolf wrote:This is what we see;
What exactly do you mean by up/down left/right in space? If we viewed the same object from different hemispheres the data would be flipped. Does that somehow invalidate any given theory? Fundamentally I don’t understand what you are talking about. Of course a left/right galaxy is possible for expansion. If I lie down on my side when photographing galaxies is my data invalidated? What an absurd declaration to make.Bob_Ham wrote: Any data showing the left (or right) edge redshifted and the right (or left) edge blueshifted with a vertical line of zero relative velocity through the middle would not be possible in your model (but is predicted by a rotation model).
No. It matches this;Bob_Ham wrote: Here is some more data for you:
Look at the third image from the left. This is a spiral galaxy. The velocity data (second row) matches a rotation model, not an expansion model.
Let me correct that for you.Bob_Ham wrote:I only responded to Aardwolf's original claim because it was so ridiculous. Now I'm just curious what Aardwolf has to say, since his claims are completely out of touch with the evidence of reality.
What Bob_Ham is actually saying while trying to elevate the status of his theory wrote:I only responded to Aardwolf's original claim because it was so ridiculous. Now I'm just curious what Aardwolf has to say, since his claims are completely out of touch with the flimsy theory utilising my favourite interpretation of redshift/blueshift galaxy observations.
What is demonstrably incorrect is the current prevailing theory of rotational galaxies. How many amendments and anomalies are required to even give it a semblance of authenticity?Bob_Ham wrote:It's interesting how Aardwolf is just completely absent after his idea about galaxies not rotating was shown to be utter nonsense. Are we not going to hear anything else from you, Aardwolf, or are you just waiting until everyone has forgotten about your ridiculous and demonstrably incorrect claim so that you can participate again without shame?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 45 guests