Ross Finlayson wrote:
>
> On 04/05/2024 11:04 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Ross Finlayson wrote:
> >>
> >> 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".
> >
> > What about Erwin Muller? isn't he der furst tu see an atom??
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> It's kind of like one time sometime asked Einstein, "are atoms real?",
> and he said something like, "yeah, you know, there are reasons why
> it's really just a concession to the notion that in the theory
> there's mathematics and the vanishing and infinitesimal, and of
> course it relates to all the antique and historical theories of
> the atomism or what we call Democritan atomism, and, chemistry
> arrives at stoichiometry or perfect proportions with regards to
> quantities of masses of chemical elements, then what we have is
> electron physics, about specifically the discreteness of the
> energies, which we sort of need because otherwise mathematics
> runs over, so we got electron physics, then there's Avogadro's
> number, or about 9.022*10^23 many atoms per mole, and we got
> stuff going on about Angstroms five above and Planck five below,
> the orders of magnitude of the size of these theoretical particles,
> yet it's still just an conceit to the theory of particles, and
> then though we know there's particle/wave duality, so on the
> one hand it's just to give people the idea that there are simple
> finite quantities, even in the atomic scale, yet otherwise it's
> still a conceit, so, ..., yeah, sure, atoms are real".
>
> It might help if you know that NIST CODATA prints a table of
> the fundamental physical constants, and, every few years
> they've gotten smaller, not just more precise yet smaller,
> it's called "running constants", and helps explain how a
> theory of atomism and discrete particles works just great,
> when really it's a continuum mechanics.

Translation: Erwin Muller wasn't a Jewish scientist, so he's not suppose
to be known for seeing the atom.

dat explains Why 6 million jewish people were subject to genocide...

besides being a stone in everyones shoe.

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

On 04/06/2024 12:08 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>
>> On 04/05/2024 11:04 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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".
>>>
>>> What about Erwin Muller? isn't he der furst tu see an atom??
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> It's kind of like one time sometime asked Einstein, "are atoms real?",
>> and he said something like, "yeah, you know, there are reasons why
>> it's really just a concession to the notion that in the theory
>> there's mathematics and the vanishing and infinitesimal, and of
>> course it relates to all the antique and historical theories of
>> the atomism or what we call Democritan atomism, and, chemistry
>> arrives at stoichiometry or perfect proportions with regards to
>> quantities of masses of chemical elements, then what we have is
>> electron physics, about specifically the discreteness of the
>> energies, which we sort of need because otherwise mathematics
>> runs over, so we got electron physics, then there's Avogadro's
>> number, or about 9.022*10^23 many atoms per mole, and we got
>> stuff going on about Angstroms five above and Planck five below,
>> the orders of magnitude of the size of these theoretical particles,
>> yet it's still just an conceit to the theory of particles, and
>> then though we know there's particle/wave duality, so on the
>> one hand it's just to give people the idea that there are simple
>> finite quantities, even in the atomic scale, yet otherwise it's
>> still a conceit, so, ..., yeah, sure, atoms are real".
>>
>> It might help if you know that NIST CODATA prints a table of
>> the fundamental physical constants, and, every few years
>> they've gotten smaller, not just more precise yet smaller,
>> it's called "running constants", and helps explain how a
>> theory of atomism and discrete particles works just great,
>> when really it's a continuum mechanics.
>
>
> Translation: Erwin Muller wasn't a Jewish scientist, so he's not suppose
> to be known for seeing the atom.
>
>
> dat explains Why 6 million jewish people were subject to genocide...
>
> besides being a stone in everyones shoe.
>
>
>
>
>
>

One does not simply _invoke_ Godwin's law, ....

Ross Finlayson wrote:
>
> On 04/06/2024 12:08 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Ross Finlayson wrote:
> >>
> >> On 04/05/2024 11:04 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> 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".
> >>>
> >>> What about Erwin Muller? isn't he der furst tu see an atom??
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> It's kind of like one time sometime asked Einstein, "are atoms real?",
> >> and he said something like, "yeah, you know, there are reasons why
> >> it's really just a concession to the notion that in the theory
> >> there's mathematics and the vanishing and infinitesimal, and of
> >> course it relates to all the antique and historical theories of
> >> the atomism or what we call Democritan atomism, and, chemistry
> >> arrives at stoichiometry or perfect proportions with regards to
> >> quantities of masses of chemical elements, then what we have is
> >> electron physics, about specifically the discreteness of the
> >> energies, which we sort of need because otherwise mathematics
> >> runs over, so we got electron physics, then there's Avogadro's
> >> number, or about 9.022*10^23 many atoms per mole, and we got
> >> stuff going on about Angstroms five above and Planck five below,
> >> the orders of magnitude of the size of these theoretical particles,
> >> yet it's still just an conceit to the theory of particles, and
> >> then though we know there's particle/wave duality, so on the
> >> one hand it's just to give people the idea that there are simple
> >> finite quantities, even in the atomic scale, yet otherwise it's
> >> still a conceit, so, ..., yeah, sure, atoms are real".
> >>
> >> It might help if you know that NIST CODATA prints a table of
> >> the fundamental physical constants, and, every few years
> >> they've gotten smaller, not just more precise yet smaller,
> >> it's called "running constants", and helps explain how a
> >> theory of atomism and discrete particles works just great,
> >> when really it's a continuum mechanics.
> >
> >
> > Translation: Erwin Muller wasn't a Jewish scientist, so he's not suppose
> > to be known for seeing the atom.
> >
> >
> > dat explains Why 6 million jewish people were subject to genocide...
> >
> > besides being a stone in everyones shoe.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> 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?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQOuoUaSxKQ

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