ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 4th December 2019, 06:48 PM   #1
philippeb8
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661
Finite Theory: Historical Milestone in Physics

- I wrote a theory that was previously debated here:
https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthr...14#post2464214

- Other than a missing galactic rotation curve without dark matter and a missing experiment proposal in the debate, I've showed the exact solution for the time dilation cancellation altitude, the perihelion shift, the light bending. It also explains the expansion of the universe without dark energy and the mass of the invisible universe encompassing the visible universe.

- I'm basically saying the last 300 years of physics are all wrong.

- Those who do not believe me can answer this simple thought experiment:

Imagine you have an empty universe with 1 star in it. Can the star spin on its own and if so at what speed will the fire be ejected given an angular velocity omega?
philippeb8 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2019, 07:53 PM   #2
sackett
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Detroit
Posts: 5,876
Interesting Ian, is that you?
__________________
Fill the seats of justice with good men; not so absolute in goodness as to forget what human frailty is. -- Thomas Jefferson

What region of the earth is not filled with our calamities? -- Virgil
sackett is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2019, 08:05 PM   #3
philippeb8
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661
Originally Posted by sackett View Post
Interesting Ian, is that you?
No.
philippeb8 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2019, 08:25 PM   #4
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 65,612
Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
- I'm basically saying the last 300 years of physics are all wrong.
That's a good way to start.

Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
- Those who do not believe me can answer this simple thought experiment:

Imagine you have an empty universe with 1 star in it. Can the star spin on its own and if so at what speed will the fire be ejected given an angular velocity omega?
Stars aren't on fire.
__________________
Self-described nerd.

My mom told me she tries never to make fun of people for not knowing something.
- Randall Munroe
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2019, 08:25 PM   #5
Molinaro
Illuminator
 
Molinaro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,604
The galactic rotation curve is not missing in your theory. It is flat out wrong and contradicts experimental data. Therefore, you theory is proven to be wrong. A wrong theory cannot be used to prove 300 years of physics to be wrong.
__________________
100% Cannuck!
Molinaro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2019, 08:33 PM   #6
philippeb8
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661
Originally Posted by Molinaro View Post
The galactic rotation curve is not missing in your theory. It is flat out wrong and contradicts experimental data. Therefore, you theory is proven to be wrong. A wrong theory cannot be used to prove 300 years of physics to be wrong.
I just didn't have a "pretty" curve but now I do. Please pay attention to the thought experiment.

Thanks.
philippeb8 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2019, 08:36 PM   #7
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,428
Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
I wrote a theory that was previously debated here:...
And is still as invalid as it was when that thread started in 2012. An impossible claim and a rather silly question makes it even more dubious.
The last 300 years of physics includes 300 years of testing that show that the laws of physics work.
Of course a hypothetical star in an empty universe can have any spin that anyone wants to assign to it - it is hypothetical!
If you want to know at what angular velocity stellar plasma would be ejected from a spinning star then you can look it up yourself.

Let us go through the obvious errors:
Definition 1: Nonsense that is ignorant about the definition of a reference frame.
Definition 2: Ignorance about the existence of SR and relativistic kinetic energy.
Hypothesis 1: More ignorance about reference frames and SR.
Hypothesis 2: Some nonsense about time dilation and kinetic energy.
Fudge Factor of the Solar System: "Fudge Factor" says it all !
A list of equations popping out of nowhere.
Some nonsense about stuff inside/outside of "the sphere".
Ending with totally wrong "Galactic Rotation Curve".

Last edited by Reality Check; 4th December 2019 at 08:55 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2019, 08:39 PM   #8
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,313
Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
<snip>

- Those who do not believe me can answer this simple thought experiment:

Imagine you have an empty universe with 1 star in it. Can the star spin on its own and if so at what speed will the fire be ejected given an angular velocity omega?
What sort of star is it?
A brown dwarf?
A red dwarf?
A red giant?
A red supergiant?
A Wolf-Rayet?
A Cepheid?
A white dwarf?
A neutron star?
A black hole?
Some other kind of star?
None of the above?
All of the above?

What is the metric for this toy universe?

If thereís just ď1 starĒ, how can it be observed (to estimate the angular velocity, and measure the properties of any ďfireĒ)?
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2019, 08:42 PM   #9
philippeb8
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
And is still as invalid. An impossible claims and a rather silly question makes it even more dubious.
The last 300 years of physics includes 300 years of testing that show that the laws of physics work.
Of course a hypothetical star in an empty universe can have any spin that anyone wants to assign to it - it is hypothetical!
If you want to know at what angular velocity stellar plasma would be ejected from a spinning star then you can look it up yourself.
Then you got the answer wrong because there is no absolute frame of reference!

Well here you go: disproving 300 years of physics was done quite rapidly...
philippeb8 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2019, 08:42 PM   #10
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,313
Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
I just didn't have a "pretty" curve but now I do. Please pay attention to the thought experiment.

Thanks.
And I have an invisible pink unicorn under my desk. One of the thousands from the bottom of my garden (no, theyíre not fairies, I asked them).
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2019, 08:59 PM   #11
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,428
Exclamation A delusion that spin needs a "absolute frame of reference"

Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
Then you got the answer wrong because there is no absolute frame of reference!
5 December 2019 philippeb8: A delusion that spin needs a "absolute frame of reference".
Spin is just a property of an object and we can assign your hypothetical star any value of spin that we want, which was the question you asked: Can the star spin on its own. Or is the question even worse - you expect the star to stars as not spinning and magically spin up?

Measuring classical spin needs a fixed point of reference. On the other hand replace your star with an electron and even that is not needed. Electrons have intrinsic spin. But I am sure you have some fantasy to overturn QM theory and empirical evidence !

Last edited by Reality Check; 4th December 2019 at 09:04 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2019, 09:05 PM   #12
philippeb8
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
5 December 2019 philippeb8: A delusion that spin needs a "absolute frame of reference".
Spin is just a property of an object and we can assign your star a value of spin. Measuring classical spin needs a fixed point of reference.
In other words the star cannot eject fire because the reference frame spins with the star.

Last edited by philippeb8; 4th December 2019 at 09:11 PM.
philippeb8 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2019, 09:08 PM   #13
philippeb8
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Measuring classical spin needs a fixed point of reference. On the other hand replace your star with an electron and even that is not needed. Electrons have intrinsic spin. But I am sure you have some fantasy to overturn QM theory and empirical evidence !
I specifically pointed out the universe is empty so there is no point of reference.
philippeb8 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2019, 09:09 PM   #14
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,313
Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
In other words the star cannot eject fire because the reference frame spins along with the star.
If I am not mistaken, English is not a language you feel you are totally comfortable using. If so, you might like to reconsider what you wrote, with a view to editing it.
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2019, 09:11 PM   #15
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 65,612
Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
In other words the star cannot eject fire because the reference frame spins along with the star.
No, the star cannot eject fire because stars aren't on fire.
__________________
Self-described nerd.

My mom told me she tries never to make fun of people for not knowing something.
- Randall Munroe
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2019, 09:12 PM   #16
philippeb8
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
If I am not mistaken, English is not a language you feel you are totally comfortable using. If so, you might like to reconsider what you wrote, with a view to editing it.
Thanks.
philippeb8 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2019, 09:12 PM   #17
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,428
Exclamation 4 years of not understanding why your galaxy rotation curve are wrong

5 December 2018 philippeb8: 4 years of not understanding why your galaxy rotation curve are wrong!
I pointed this out at cosmoquest.
FT fails to calculate the rotation curve of the Milky Way and is invalid on 21 October 2015.
Look at a measured galaxy rotation curve for M 33. There is no sharp peak. There are no wiggles. Your theory fails to match the data. Thus your theory is still wrong. on 16 October 2018.

5 December 2018 philippeb8: A year of not understanding that the universe does not have a center?
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2019, 09:12 PM   #18
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,313
Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
I specifically pointed out the universe is empty so there is no point of reference.
And I specifically asked you how anything could be measured if there is no observer.

I also asked you about the 1 star; now Iíll ask you why that star cannot be used to describe a reference frame.
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2019, 09:18 PM   #19
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,428
Thumbs down An "In other words" lie when my post does not say anything about ejecting "fire"

Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
In other words the star cannot eject fire because the reference frame spins with the star.
5 December 2019 philippeb8: An "In other words" lie when my post does not say anything about ejecting "fire".
In fact it is the reverse. Spin up a star enough and it will eject plasma. We can assign that star any spin that we want and that will have physical effects such as ejecting plasma if high enough.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2019, 09:19 PM   #20
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,428
Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
I specifically pointed out the universe is empty so there is no point of reference.
If you read my post, that stops us from measuring the spin as I highlighted in bold there and do again here. We can assign any spin that we want to a hypothetical star.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2019, 09:20 PM   #21
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,313
Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
I specifically pointed out the universe is empty so there is no point of reference.
If the universe is empty, it cannot contain any stars. Not even 1 star.
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2019, 09:25 PM   #22
philippeb8
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
5 December 2018 philippeb8: 4 years of not understanding why your galaxy rotation curve are wrong!
I pointed this out at cosmoquest.
FT fails to calculate the rotation curve of the Milky Way and is invalid on 21 October 2015.
Look at a measured galaxy rotation curve for M 33. There is no sharp peak. There are no wiggles. Your theory fails to match the data. Thus your theory is still wrong. on 16 October 2018.

5 December 2018 philippeb8: A year of not understanding that the universe does not have a center?
Here's a pretty curve for you:
philippeb8 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2019, 09:27 PM   #23
philippeb8
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
If you read my post, that stops us from measuring the spin as I highlighted in bold there and do again here. We can assign any spin that we want to a hypothetical star.
No you can't because there is nothing to relate it to.
philippeb8 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2019, 09:28 PM   #24
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,428
Exclamation FT theory that starts as ignorant about perihelion precession

5 December 2019 philippeb8: An FT theory that starts as ignorant about perihelion precession!
A "Perihelion Precession" equation that is V(r) when perihelion precession is a rotation of the axis of an orbit such as Mercury's 574 arcsec/Julian century Later there is an excuse of this being a "effective gravitational potential".
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2019, 09:29 PM   #25
philippeb8
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
And I specifically asked you how anything could be measured if there is no observer.

I also asked you about the 1 star; now Iíll ask you why that star cannot be used to describe a reference frame.
That's exactly what I said: the star defines the reference frame.
philippeb8 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2019, 09:31 PM   #26
philippeb8
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
5 December 2019 philippeb8: An FT theory that starts as ignorant about perihelion precession!
A "Perihelion Precession" equation that is V(r) when perihelion precession is a rotation of the axis of an orbit such as Mercury's 574 arcsec/Julian century Later there is an excuse of this being a "effective gravitational potential".
Reality Check changes the subject again...
philippeb8 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2019, 09:35 PM   #27
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,428
Question Possible stupidity of a "pretty curve" seemingly debunking FT

Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
...
5 December 2018 philippeb8: 4 years of not understanding why your galaxy rotation curve are wrong!

5 December 2018 philippeb8: Possible stupidity of a "pretty curve" seemingly debunking FT?
A relatively minor point is that the curve is smooth unlike the FT curves from a year ago with their peak and waves. The possible stupidity is this FT curve does not fit the "Dark Matter" or "No Dark Matter" curves, whatever they are.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2019, 09:38 PM   #28
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,428
Thumbs down A "Reality Check changes the subject again" lie when this is your FT thread

Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
Reality Check changes the subject again...
5 December 2019 philippeb8: A "Reality Check changes the subject again" lie when this is your FT thread.
You cited your FT post on cosmoquest.
5 December 2019 philippeb8: An FT theory that starts as ignorant about perihelion precession! is an blatant error you made in that post.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2019, 09:43 PM   #29
philippeb8
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
5 December 2018 philippeb8: 4 years of not understanding why your galaxy rotation curve are wrong!



5 December 2018 philippeb8: Possible stupidity of a "pretty curve" seemingly debunking FT?

A relatively minor point is that the curve is smooth unlike the FT curves from a year ago with their peak and waves. The possible stupidity is this FT curve does not fit the "Dark Matter" or "No Dark Matter" curves, whatever they are.


It explains you donít need dark matter to explain the rotation curve at all. Finite Theory adds a spin to the reference frame of the galaxy, just like the thought experiment.
philippeb8 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2019, 09:43 PM   #30
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,428
Exclamation A fantasy that a hypothetical scenario cannot be assigned hypothetical quantities

Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
No you can't because there is nothing to relate it to.
5 December 2018 philippeb8: A fantasy that a hypothetical scenario cannot be assigned hypothetical quantities
He has a hypothetical star. Any quantities at all can be assigned to it including spin. We can make it a black hole with a spin of X (but none of his fire!) .
Not having a fixed point of reference just means an observer cannot measure that spin: 5 December 2019 philippeb8: A delusion that spin needs a "absolute frame of reference".
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2019, 09:48 PM   #31
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,428
Thumbs down A "donít need dark matter to explain the rotation curve at all" fantasy

Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
It explains you donít need dark matter to explain the rotation curve at all.
5 December 2019 philippeb8: A "donít need dark matter to explain the rotation curve at all" fantasy when all he has is a cartoon with no explanation, physics or math.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2019, 09:51 PM   #32
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,313
Hmm ...

The star defines the reference frame

The universe is empty so there is no point of reference

?? What am I missing?
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2019, 09:53 PM   #33
philippeb8
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
5 December 2019 philippeb8: A "donít need dark matter to explain the rotation curve at all" fantasy when all he has is a cartoon with no explanation, physics or math.


If you donít understand ďadds a spinĒ then there is not much I can do...
philippeb8 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2019, 09:56 PM   #34
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,428
Exclamation FT "adds a spin to the reference frame of the galaxy" gibberish

Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
Finite Theory adds a spin to the reference frame of the galaxy, just like the thought experiment.
5 December 2019 philippeb8: FT "adds a spin to the reference frame of the galaxy" gibberish.
One rational choice of reference frame for a galaxy is one that spins with the galaxy so there is no spin at all! Other choices of reference frame for a galaxy give the galaxy its appropriate spin, e.g. the one we observe.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2019, 09:59 PM   #35
philippeb8
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Hmm ...



The star defines the reference frame



The universe is empty so there is no point of reference



?? What am I missing?


You understand much better than Reality Check already...

The universe is empty so the star itself defines the frame of reference.

If you have a black whole next to the star then the black hole will define the frame of reference... and so on.
philippeb8 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2019, 10:00 PM   #36
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,428
Exclamation A delusion that "adds a spin" is a scientific theory

Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
If you don’t understand “adds a spin” then there is not much I can do...
5 December 2019 philippeb8: A delusion that "adds a spin" is a scientific theory or a coherent explanation!
The full nonsense is: 5 December 2019 philippeb8: FT "adds a spin to the reference frame of the galaxy" gibberish.

Can we then get rid of his "dark matter" by selecting a reference frame spinning with galaxy spin with his added FT spin that pops out of nowhere? Or make more "dark matter" by selecting a different reference frame?

Last edited by Reality Check; 4th December 2019 at 10:08 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2019, 10:11 PM   #37
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,313
Stars, even in toy universes, are made of matter. Specifically, hadrons and leptons (and perhaps some CDM).

Those which have one or more nuclear fires in their bellies (I.e excluding stars like white dwarfs and neutron stars), emit neutrinos. In all directions. As thereís nothing but a solitary star in the toy universe, the outer boundary of the star tends to infinity. So the toy universe is quickly filled with a CNB.

Ditto photons, so a CPB.

Some stars run out of gas and their cores collapse. Hadrons and leptons stream out, also eventually filling the toy universe. So a CMB

But wait! Photons below a certain frequency cannot propagate in at least parts of the CMB!

The toy universe is developing quite a lot of structure, outside the 1 star (not to mention the rich structure within that 1 star).

But wait! Our particle physics friends tell us that not all particles are spherically symmetric. And at least some such are certainly present in most kinds of star. And random motions etc will generate anisotropies, albeit mostly very small. And impermanent.

....

Your toy universe is becoming a very complicated place, wouldnít you say philippeb8?
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2019, 10:20 PM   #38
philippeb8
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
5 December 2019 philippeb8: A delusion that "adds a spin" is a scientific theory or a coherent explanation!

The full nonsense is: 5 December 2019 philippeb8: FT "adds a spin to the reference frame of the galaxy" gibberish.



Can we then get rid of his "dark matter" by selecting a reference frame spinning with galaxy spin with his added FT spin that pops out of nowhere? Or make more "dark matter" by selecting a different reference frame?


Masses all have their own reference frame but their importance is proportional to their mass amplitude. Just like what I was saying in the thought experiment.

So an entire galaxy got its own reference frame which does influence the rotation curve.
philippeb8 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2019, 10:30 PM   #39
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,313
Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
Masses all have their own reference frame but their importance is proportional to their mass amplitude. Just like what I was saying in the thought experiment.

<snip>
Really?

Do I recall correctly? That masses which are protons, for example, have constituents (quarks) whose total mass is faaar below that of the proton?

Oh, and your toy universe does not have the property your just magically assigned it.
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2019, 10:32 PM   #40
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,313
Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
You understand much better than Reality Check already...

The universe is empty so the star itself defines the frame of reference.

If you have a black whole next to the star then the black hole will define the frame of reference... and so on.
You might like to re-read what you wrote. At a minimum thereís quite a bit of ambiguity.
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:49 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.