From: PointedEars@web.de   
      
   Ross Finlayson wrote:   
   > Of course, you will agree that 1) the solar system is in a geodesy   
   > that's always instantaneously evaluated everywhere its orbifold,   
   > and the apparent force vectors of gravity are by the bodies in   
   > their orbifold as modeled by the geodesy not their image's locations,   
   > and 2) dark-matter/dark-energy or rather the observations that imply   
   > their existence have long ago falsified standard cosmology   
   > (Einsteinian/Newtonian/Galilean), then also there's that 3) readily   
   > apparent gyroscopic effects are not explained by Magnus effect and   
   > have falsified Galilean theories of trajectory.   
      
   How can I possibly agree to this?  It is pseudo-scientific word salad,   
   bereft of meaning.   
      
   For example, an orbifold (orbit-manifold) does NOT have to do with orbits in   
   celestial mechanics, but with orbits as understood in *group theory*: "The   
   orbit of an element x in X is the set of elements in X to which x can be   
   moved by the elements of G [which is acting on X]:   
      
     G ⋅ x = {g ⋅ x : g ∈ G}."   
      
      
      
   You keep using words because they sound scientific, not because you know and   
   have understood their meaning.  The result is utter nonsense, not even wrong.   
      
   --   
   PointedEars   
      
   Twitter: @PointedEars2   
   Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)