H
Happy Hippy
- Jan 1, 1970
- 0
DM?Mark said:Happy Hippy wrote:
If, by "Keplerian", you mean a nice, clean, uncomplicated ellipse,
then I'll have to say "What ever gave you the idea that things in the
Universe are even asserted to follow such ideal paths?" I already told
you a few posts back that I already know that real things don't travel
in clean ellipses. An ideal elliptical orbit is followed only by
*pairs* of gravitating objects. In this big Cosmos, there are no pairs.
There are, in fact, g'zillions of things exerting forces upon each
other, and gravity is only one of those forces. Kepler discovered
elliptical orbits only by the grace of orbits which are sufficiently
close to ideal ellipses as to be amenable to analysis by means
available to him at that time. If they had been severely complicated,
for example by our being in a binary star system, then he probably
would not have had a chance.
Something you don't seem to grasp is that the arms are not
equivalent to the individual stars within them. If I rig up a weak
light source to shine through a pinhole, producing an Airy pattern (an
interference pattern of concentric rings) on a screen, the image of the
rings will be quite stable on the large scale. But if I look closely
enough at the image I'll find that on the small scale it sparkles. Each
sparkle is a single photon event on the screen. The large Airy pattern
is not, from moment to moment, the same exact photons. The photons come
& go. The spiral arms of a galaxy are not necessarily made up of the
same exact individual stars from one eon to the next. The spiral
pattern is not a function only of Keplerian orbits. There's something
more complicated going on in spiral galaxies than *just" masses
gravitating towards each other.
And if you don't know by now, at this late time in your carreer as a
maverick physicist, why the anomalous periods of galactic stars
suggests Dark Matter (which should then be investigated as a plausible
hypothesis, *alongside* the hypothesis that gravity follows a law not
yet understood by us)), then what the hell are you doing bashing it?
You don't even know what it is that you're debunking.
There's an old saying, that "Things should be described as simply as
possible, but no simpler." Your stuff is a perfect example of simpler.
-Mark Martin
DE?
Postulating whole new classes of things to prop
up 'suck gravity'?
In your view, is that 'as simply as
possible'?
John