From: ttt_heg@web.de   
      
   Am Freitag000016, 16.01.2026 um 20:30 schrieb Ross Finlayson:   
   > On 03/31/2024 01:42 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:   
   >> On 03/31/2024 01:49 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>> On 2024-03-31 06:32:40 +0000, Thomas Heger said:   
   >>>   
   >>>> Am 30.03.2024 um 18:50 schrieb Python:   
   >>>>> Le 30/03/2024 à 08:41, Thomas Heger a écrit :   
   >>>>> ...   
   >>>>>> Now cosmologists have a wellknown habit to ignore the delay caused by   
   >>>>>> the finite speed of light, hence tend to take the observed image for   
   >>>>>> real and make no attempts to compensate the delay.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> "wellknown"? Quite the opposite. This is something you made up (as   
   >>>>> usual).   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Haven't you noticed the number of papers proposing explanations for   
   >>>>> the observation of big galaxies *older* than it was supposedly   
   >>>>> possible?   
   >>>>> They are visible in images obtained *now* by spatial telescopes.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> This is actually, what I had criticised in Einstein's 'On the   
   >>>>>> electrodynamics of moving bodies' several times, too, because   
   >>>>>> Einstein   
   >>>>>> didn't even mention the delay and made not effort to eliminate its   
   >>>>>> effects.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> This is wrong. He did actually that in part I.1 in 1905 article as   
   >>>>> it as been *shown* to you in details numerous times (it is basically   
   >>>>> obvious for any competent reader of the paper, only you failed to   
   >>>>> understand that).   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> In cosmology the problem is much more obvious, but cosmologists make   
   >>>>>> not attempts to compensate this effect, neither.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> This is also wrong.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> What the hell made you think such an idiotic thing? Cosmologists not   
   >>>>> taking in account the finite light propagation speed? Seriously, you   
   >>>>> have a cognitive problem of some kind.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> Instead they are looking for the cause of rotation of the vortex   
   >>>>>> structure (what is rather silly).   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> 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?   
      
   It is obviously impossible to see what is happening now in cosmolgical   
   distances of some (or many) lightyears.   
      
   It should be taken into consideration, that light takes time to travel   
   and what is happening now will be seen much later.   
      
   Therefore the entire sky is filled with pictures, which had their roots   
   in the past, while what is happening now cannot be seen.   
      
   But we have only what we can  actually see and nothing else (besides of   
   earlier observations, if the results were stored somewhere).   
      
   So its is quite unfortunate, that we would need to see 'now' but cann't.   
      
   To take the false picture of reality at face value wouldn't make sense,   
   because we know, that our obserbvations are wrong.   
      
   It doesn't help, if we alter the definition of 'reality' to include,   
   what is not real.   
      
   ...   
      
      
   TH   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)