Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Are gravitational waves being 'redshifted' away by the cosmological constant?
48 views
Skip to first unread message
Sam Wormley
Jan 21, 2016, 5:17:04 PM1/21/16
to
Are gravitational waves being 'redshifted' away by the cosmological
constant?
> http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2016/jan/21/are-gravitational-waves-being-redshifted-away-by-the-cosmological-constant
> The theoretical framework underlying gravitational waves may have to
> be revamped to account for dark energy and the acceleration of the
> expansion of the universe. That's the conclusion of researchers in
> the US, who say that while gravitational waves from nearby sources
> will be unaffected, next-generation detectors such as the Laser
> Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA) and the Einstein Telescope –
> which aim to detect gravitational waves from billions of light-years
> away – may fall foul of the expansion of the universe. While such
> telescopes will still detect gravitational waves, the signal detected
> from more distant waves could be fairly different to what is
> currently expected, say the researchers.
>
> Dark energy is best explained by a small but positive value for the
> cosmological constant, which describes the energy density of space.
> It was the famous factor that Albert Einstein discarded from his
> general theory of relativity, when it was found in 1929 that the
> universe was expanding. For the next 69 years, theorists assumed that
> the cosmological constant was equal to zero. However, in 1998, it was
> discovered that the expansion of the universe was accelerating,
> driven by the mysterious dark energy, and the cosmological constant
> was back in the running.
>
> Because the value of the cosmological constant is very small (10–52
> m2), it had been assumed that it would have a negligible effect on
> the mathematical descriptions of gravitational waves. However, Abhay
> Ashtekar and colleagues at the Institute for Gravitation and the
> Cosmos at Penn State University in the US believe that it throws a
> spanner into the works of our current gravitational-wave theories.
>
--
sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.
constant?
> http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2016/jan/21/are-gravitational-waves-being-redshifted-away-by-the-cosmological-constant
> The theoretical framework underlying gravitational waves may have to
> be revamped to account for dark energy and the acceleration of the
> expansion of the universe. That's the conclusion of researchers in
> the US, who say that while gravitational waves from nearby sources
> will be unaffected, next-generation detectors such as the Laser
> Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA) and the Einstein Telescope –
> which aim to detect gravitational waves from billions of light-years
> away – may fall foul of the expansion of the universe. While such
> telescopes will still detect gravitational waves, the signal detected
> from more distant waves could be fairly different to what is
> currently expected, say the researchers.
>
> Dark energy is best explained by a small but positive value for the
> cosmological constant, which describes the energy density of space.
> It was the famous factor that Albert Einstein discarded from his
> general theory of relativity, when it was found in 1929 that the
> universe was expanding. For the next 69 years, theorists assumed that
> the cosmological constant was equal to zero. However, in 1998, it was
> discovered that the expansion of the universe was accelerating,
> driven by the mysterious dark energy, and the cosmological constant
> was back in the running.
>
> Because the value of the cosmological constant is very small (10–52
> m2), it had been assumed that it would have a negligible effect on
> the mathematical descriptions of gravitational waves. However, Abhay
> Ashtekar and colleagues at the Institute for Gravitation and the
> Cosmos at Penn State University in the US believe that it throws a
> spanner into the works of our current gravitational-wave theories.
>
--
sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Jan 21, 2016, 6:46:11 PM1/21/16
to
Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Are gravitational waves being 'redshifted' away by the cosmological
> constant?
Maybe, but what I really was to know is what makes you think you are
> Are gravitational waves being 'redshifted' away by the cosmological
> constant?
so special that you are exempt from copyrights?
--
Jim Pennino
Double-A
Jan 22, 2016, 5:29:23 PM1/22/16
to
On Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 2:17:04 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> Are gravitational waves being 'redshifted' away by the cosmological
> constant?
> > http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2016/jan/21/are-gravitational-waves-being-redshifted-away-by-the-cosmological-constant
>
>
>
> > The theoretical framework underlying gravitational waves may have to
> > be revamped to account for dark energy and the acceleration of the
> > expansion of the universe. That's the conclusion of researchers in
> > the US, who say that while gravitational waves from nearby sources
> > will be unaffected, next-generation detectors such as the Laser
> > Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA) and the Einstein Telescope -
> Are gravitational waves being 'redshifted' away by the cosmological
> constant?
> > http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2016/jan/21/are-gravitational-waves-being-redshifted-away-by-the-cosmological-constant
>
>
>
> > The theoretical framework underlying gravitational waves may have to
> > be revamped to account for dark energy and the acceleration of the
> > expansion of the universe. That's the conclusion of researchers in
> > the US, who say that while gravitational waves from nearby sources
> > will be unaffected, next-generation detectors such as the Laser
> > which aim to detect gravitational waves from billions of light-years
> > away - may fall foul of the expansion of the universe. While such
> > telescopes will still detect gravitational waves, the signal detected
> > from more distant waves could be fairly different to what is
> > currently expected, say the researchers.
> >
> > Dark energy is best explained by a small but positive value for the
> > cosmological constant, which describes the energy density of space.
> > It was the famous factor that Albert Einstein discarded from his
> > general theory of relativity, when it was found in 1929 that the
> > universe was expanding. For the next 69 years, theorists assumed that
> > the cosmological constant was equal to zero. However, in 1998, it was
> > discovered that the expansion of the universe was accelerating,
> > driven by the mysterious dark energy, and the cosmological constant
> > was back in the running.
> >
> > Because the value of the cosmological constant is very small (10-52
> > from more distant waves could be fairly different to what is
> > currently expected, say the researchers.
> >
> > Dark energy is best explained by a small but positive value for the
> > cosmological constant, which describes the energy density of space.
> > It was the famous factor that Albert Einstein discarded from his
> > general theory of relativity, when it was found in 1929 that the
> > universe was expanding. For the next 69 years, theorists assumed that
> > the cosmological constant was equal to zero. However, in 1998, it was
> > discovered that the expansion of the universe was accelerating,
> > driven by the mysterious dark energy, and the cosmological constant
> > was back in the running.
> >
> > m2), it had been assumed that it would have a negligible effect on
> > the mathematical descriptions of gravitational waves. However, Abhay
> > Ashtekar and colleagues at the Institute for Gravitation and the
> > Cosmos at Penn State University in the US believe that it throws a
> > spanner into the works of our current gravitational-wave theories.
> >
What gravitational waves?
> > the mathematical descriptions of gravitational waves. However, Abhay
> > Ashtekar and colleagues at the Institute for Gravitation and the
> > Cosmos at Penn State University in the US believe that it throws a
> > spanner into the works of our current gravitational-wave theories.
> >
Double-A
Sam Wormley
Jan 22, 2016, 5:32:55 PM1/22/16
to
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Jan 22, 2016, 6:01:06 PM1/22/16
to
--
Jim Pennino
john
Jan 22, 2016, 6:04:31 PM1/22/16
to
Grav waves- waves of we don't know what
in we're not sure what influencing we
haven't a clue what- and we don't know
how, either, but how could we?
Haw!
in we're not sure what influencing we
haven't a clue what- and we don't know
how, either, but how could we?
Haw!
Sam Wormley
Jan 23, 2016, 11:40:07 AM1/23/16
to
On 1/21/16 5:45 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Maybe, but what I really was to know is what makes you think you are
> so special that you are exempt from copyrights?
Now, now, jimp, you're obsessive nature is outta control, and your
> Maybe, but what I really was to know is what makes you think you are
> so special that you are exempt from copyrights?
absolute contempt and total disgust are addressed in these Anger
Management classes. You, jimp, need these services:
> http://yellowpages.com/rancho-cucamonga-ca/anger-management-classes
Are gravitational waves being 'redshifted' away by the cosmological
constant?
jay moseley
Jan 23, 2016, 1:05:19 PM1/23/16
to
Double -A wrote..
> What gravitational waves?
Sams softening up the ground for an announcement that some sort of
anomaly has been observed but not what they predicted. By posting this
article in this thread *before* the results are announced...Sam et al
are hoping it will look like they predicted, a priori, that the gravitational
*waves* wont look like what they initially predicted.
Now when the results are announced Sam et al can say...." Look!...
we did actually predict they would look different to what we expected"
> What gravitational waves?
Sams softening up the ground for an announcement that some sort of
anomaly has been observed but not what they predicted. By posting this
article in this thread *before* the results are announced...Sam et al
are hoping it will look like they predicted, a priori, that the gravitational
*waves* wont look like what they initially predicted.
Now when the results are announced Sam et al can say...." Look!...
we did actually predict they would look different to what we expected"
Odd Bodkin
Jan 23, 2016, 1:07:03 PM1/23/16
to
On 1/22/2016 5:04 PM, john wrote:
> Grav waves- waves of we don't know what
No, that's not right. You've been told otherwise.
> Grav waves- waves of we don't know what
> in we're not sure
> what influencing we
> haven't a clue what
> - and we don't know
> how, either, but how could we?
> Haw!
>
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
reber g=emc^2
Jan 23, 2016, 1:37:24 PM1/23/16
to
On Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 2:17:04 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> Are gravitational waves being 'redshifted' away by the cosmological
> constant?
> > http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2016/jan/21/are-gravitational-waves-being-redshifted-away-by-the-cosmological-constant
>
>
>
> > The theoretical framework underlying gravitational waves may have to
> > be revamped to account for dark energy and the acceleration of the
> > expansion of the universe. That's the conclusion of researchers in
> > the US, who say that while gravitational waves from nearby sources
> > will be unaffected, next-generation detectors such as the Laser
> > Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA) and the Einstein Telescope -
> constant?
> > http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2016/jan/21/are-gravitational-waves-being-redshifted-away-by-the-cosmological-constant
>
>
>
> > The theoretical framework underlying gravitational waves may have to
> > be revamped to account for dark energy and the acceleration of the
> > expansion of the universe. That's the conclusion of researchers in
> > the US, who say that while gravitational waves from nearby sources
> > will be unaffected, next-generation detectors such as the Laser
> > which aim to detect gravitational waves from billions of light-years
> > away - may fall foul of the expansion of the universe. While such
> > telescopes will still detect gravitational waves, the signal detected
> > from more distant waves could be fairly different to what is
> > currently expected, say the researchers.
> >
> > Dark energy is best explained by a small but positive value for the
> > cosmological constant, which describes the energy density of space.
> > It was the famous factor that Albert Einstein discarded from his
> > general theory of relativity, when it was found in 1929 that the
> > universe was expanding. For the next 69 years, theorists assumed that
> > the cosmological constant was equal to zero. However, in 1998, it was
> > discovered that the expansion of the universe was accelerating,
> > driven by the mysterious dark energy, and the cosmological constant
> > was back in the running.
> >
> > Because the value of the cosmological constant is very small (10-52
> > from more distant waves could be fairly different to what is
> > currently expected, say the researchers.
> >
> > Dark energy is best explained by a small but positive value for the
> > cosmological constant, which describes the energy density of space.
> > It was the famous factor that Albert Einstein discarded from his
> > general theory of relativity, when it was found in 1929 that the
> > universe was expanding. For the next 69 years, theorists assumed that
> > the cosmological constant was equal to zero. However, in 1998, it was
> > discovered that the expansion of the universe was accelerating,
> > driven by the mysterious dark energy, and the cosmological constant
> > was back in the running.
> >
> > m2), it had been assumed that it would have a negligible effect on
> > the mathematical descriptions of gravitational waves. However, Abhay
> > Ashtekar and colleagues at the Institute for Gravitation and the
> > Cosmos at Penn State University in the US believe that it throws a
> > spanner into the works of our current gravitational-wave theories.
> >
>
>
> --
>
> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
> to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
> community, and physics-related social issues.
I posted my thoughts that close to the universe's horizen "GRAVITY FLIPS" and thus is expanding space at an accelerating rate. Locally gravity is an inward force.22 billion LYs out it becomes an outward force. TreBert
> > the mathematical descriptions of gravitational waves. However, Abhay
> > Ashtekar and colleagues at the Institute for Gravitation and the
> > Cosmos at Penn State University in the US believe that it throws a
> > spanner into the works of our current gravitational-wave theories.
> >
>
>
> --
>
> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
> to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
> community, and physics-related social issues.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Jan 23, 2016, 2:16:06 PM1/23/16
to
Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/21/16 5:45 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> Maybe, but what I really was to know is what makes you think you are
>> so special that you are exempt from copyrights?
>
>
> Now, now, jimp, you're obsessive nature is outta control, and your
What makes you think you are so special that you are exempt from copyrights?
> On 1/21/16 5:45 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> Maybe, but what I really was to know is what makes you think you are
>> so special that you are exempt from copyrights?
>
>
> Now, now, jimp, you're obsessive nature is outta control, and your
--
Jim Pennino
Double-A
Jan 23, 2016, 5:13:03 PM1/23/16
to
Double-A
Y.Porat
Jan 24, 2016, 8:19:45 AM1/24/16
to
dark matter
is supposed to enlarge gravity
or weaken it ??
TIA
Y.Porat
==================================
john
Jan 24, 2016, 9:27:38 AM1/24/16
to
Dark Matter!
Haw.
Some idiots thought that if the outer stars
of galaxies had mass around the galaxy
to pull on them as they were
coming around, that could explain why
they go faster than they should, and they
ran with that idea.
Forgetting that as soon as the star goes
past, it will be decelerated by exactly that
same amount.
Idiots
Haw.
Some idiots thought that if the outer stars
of galaxies had mass around the galaxy
to pull on them as they were
coming around, that could explain why
they go faster than they should, and they
ran with that idea.
Forgetting that as soon as the star goes
past, it will be decelerated by exactly that
same amount.
Idiots
HVAC
Jan 24, 2016, 10:31:15 AM1/24/16
to
John have you ever studied orbital mechanics?
Actually, I withdraw the question. Obviously the answer is no.
But here is something for you to think about.... When we launch a deep space probe we always use planetary bodies and their gravity wells to get a 'free' speed boost.
But according to what your said above, this would be impossible since all that speed would be lost
as the craft rounded the planet.
If this is beyond you, ask Mr Bodkin or professor Wormley to explain in a more teacher-like manner
Mahipal
Jan 24, 2016, 10:56:22 AM1/24/16
to
On Sunday, January 24, 2016 at 10:31:15 AM UTC-5, HVAC wrote:
> Some idiots thought that if the outer stars
> of galaxies had mass around the galaxy
> to pull on them as they were
> coming around, that could explain why
> they go faster than they should, and they
> ran with that idea.
> Forgetting that as soon as the star goes
> past, it will be decelerated by exactly that
> same amount.
> Idiots
> ------------
>
> John have you ever studied orbital mechanics?
Obviously John has. How about you HVAC? Where? When?
> Some idiots thought that if the outer stars
> of galaxies had mass around the galaxy
> to pull on them as they were
> coming around, that could explain why
> they go faster than they should, and they
> ran with that idea.
> Forgetting that as soon as the star goes
> past, it will be decelerated by exactly that
> same amount.
> Idiots
> ------------
>
> John have you ever studied orbital mechanics?
> Actually, I withdraw the question. Obviously the answer is no.
> But here is something for you to think about.... When we launch a
> deep space probe we always use planetary bodies and their gravity
> wells to get a 'free' speed boost.
> But according to what your said above, this would be impossible
> since all that speed would be lost as the craft rounded the planet.
> If this is beyond you, ask Mr Bodkin or professor Wormley to
> explain in a more teacher-like manner
-- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: Still working for my BMW@#... He he.”
HVAC
Jan 24, 2016, 11:20:59 AM1/24/16
to
> John have you ever studied orbital mechanics?
Obviously John has. How about you HVAC? Where? When?
--------------
Obviously John has. How about you HVAC? Where? When?
Sorry, that information is classified.
> But here is something for you to think about.... When we launch a
> deep space probe we always use planetary bodies and their gravity
> wells to get a 'free' speed boost.
You quoted free as 'free' for there is no Free Launch. Right?! (TM)
I put the quotes around 'free' to indicate that all physical laws apply. Energy can never be created nor destroyed in our universe.
Y.Porat
Jan 24, 2016, 1:34:48 PM1/24/16
to
On Sunday, January 24, 2016 at 5:31:15 PM UTC+2, HVAC wrote:
> Some idiots thought that if the outer stars
> of galaxies had mass around the galaxy
> to pull on them as they were
> coming around, that could explain why
> they go faster than they should, and they
> ran with that idea.
> Forgetting that as soon as the star goes
> past, it will be decelerated by exactly that
> same amount.
> Idiots
> ------------
>
> John have you ever studied orbital mechanics?
>
> Actually, I withdraw the question. Obviously the answer is no.
>
> But here is something for you to think about.... When we launch a deep space probe we always use planetary bodies and their gravity wells to get a 'free' speed boost.
==============================
> Some idiots thought that if the outer stars
> of galaxies had mass around the galaxy
> to pull on them as they were
> coming around, that could explain why
> they go faster than they should, and they
> ran with that idea.
> Forgetting that as soon as the star goes
> past, it will be decelerated by exactly that
> same amount.
> Idiots
> ------------
>
> John have you ever studied orbital mechanics?
>
> Actually, I withdraw the question. Obviously the answer is no.
>
> But here is something for you to think about.... When we launch a deep space probe we always use planetary bodies and their gravity wells to get a 'free' speed boost.
''gravity wells''
hey ANONYMOUS imbecile dreck gangster parrot
the only wells are in you hollow skull
greetings to P D and Wormley
=================================
>
> But according to what your said above, this would be impossible since all that speed would be lost
> as the craft rounded the planet.
>
> If this is beyond you, ask Mr Bodkin or professor Wormley to explain in a more teacher-like manner
=================
> But according to what your said above, this would be impossible since all that speed would be lost
> as the craft rounded the planet.
>
> If this is beyond you, ask Mr Bodkin or professor Wormley to explain in a more teacher-like manner
YOU MEAN THE OTHER RETARDED HIRED GANGSTERS
thieves !!
Y.P
=======================================
Y.Porat
Jan 24, 2016, 1:43:11 PM1/24/16
to
On Sunday, January 24, 2016 at 6:20:59 PM UTC+2, HVAC wrote:
> > John have you ever studied orbital mechanics?
>
> Obviously John has. How about you HVAC? Where? When?
> --------------
>
> Sorry, that information is classified.
==========================
> > John have you ever studied orbital mechanics?
>
> Obviously John has. How about you HVAC? Where? When?
> --------------
>
> Sorry, that information is classified.
anonymous pig gangster criminal
your f -en mother is classifier !!
===================================
>
>
>
>
> > But here is something for you to think about.... When we launch a
> > deep space probe we always use planetary bodies and their gravity
> > wells to get a 'free' speed boost.
----------------
>
>
>
> > But here is something for you to think about.... When we launch a
> > deep space probe we always use planetary bodies and their gravity
> > wells to get a 'free' speed boost.
what do you know about that boost Mr dreck
it is done by your
witches on brooms !!
=======================
who is we ?? piggy gangster criminal
Y.Porat
===============================
>
Sofa King
Jan 24, 2016, 7:27:51 PM1/24/16
to
Get A Brain!
Moran
.jpg
Moran
.jpg
We Todd Did
Jan 24, 2016, 7:29:20 PM1/24/16
to
Jan 24, 2016: Mahipahimal shit post number 50.
-- Mahipal “IPMM IMA LUNATIC... माहिपाल ७६३८: Still rectum lipping for my
BMW@#... He he.”
-- Mahipal “IPMM IMA LUNATIC... माहिपाल ७६३८: Still rectum lipping for my
BMW@#... He he.”
Mahipal
Jan 24, 2016, 8:40:53 PM1/24/16
to
On Sunday, January 24, 2016 at 11:20:59 AM UTC-5, HVAC wrote:
> > John have you ever studied orbital mechanics?
>
> Obviously John has. How about you HVAC? Where? When?
> --------------
>
> Sorry, that information is classified.
I bet you HVAC are as stupid in person as you are in writing.
> > John have you ever studied orbital mechanics?
>
> Obviously John has. How about you HVAC? Where? When?
> --------------
>
> Sorry, that information is classified.
I know what information and actions of USA citizens are legally
classified. Your response is a bonafide non-sequiter. As usual.
> > But here is something for you to think about.... When we launch a
> > deep space probe we always use planetary bodies and their gravity
> > wells to get a 'free' speed boost.
>
> You quoted free as 'free' for there is no Free Launch. Right?! (TM)
> -----------
>
> I put the quotes around 'free' to indicate that all physical laws
>apply. Energy can never be created nor destroyed in our universe.
The First Law of Thermodynamics. I've never heard, read, or thought
about it. Enlighten me HVAC. Or is that too classified like your
Second, Third, and Zeroth Laws?!
Also nice to see your ever watching Hyenas again posting under my
nameString==Mahipal. So cute, little hungry puppies. Eat THIS!
-- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: Freedom To Troll, 13th Amendment?!”
Mahipal
Jan 24, 2016, 8:57:57 PM1/24/16
to
-- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: Read My Lips, No New Nyms!”
Odd Bodkin
Jan 25, 2016, 11:13:21 AM1/25/16
to
evenly around the circumference of the galaxy?
As for decelerating the same amount, I had assumed you knew about the
slingshot maneuver, where a deep space probe is sent near a planet like
Jupiter and Saturn to speed its travel to the outer reaches of the solar
system. Not temporarily speed it up. Permanently speed it up. According
to you, this can't happen, but it's been done. Explain.
john
Jan 25, 2016, 1:21:48 PM1/25/16
to
It can work if everything is immersed
in Dark Matter (like in an ocean),
and the DM, itself, is in a whirlpool
configuration.
in Dark Matter (like in an ocean),
and the DM, itself, is in a whirlpool
configuration.
noTthaTguY
Jan 25, 2016, 3:33:54 PM1/25/16
to
gOOd problemma
Double-A
Jan 25, 2016, 3:40:45 PM1/25/16
to
Double-A
Sam Wormley
Jan 25, 2016, 5:26:55 PM1/25/16
to
john
Jan 25, 2016, 7:15:08 PM1/25/16
to
Odd thought gravitons "swarm", so there's
always some acting in a direction back
towards the origin.
"Flipping" is JUST as good, Sam
always some acting in a direction back
towards the origin.
"Flipping" is JUST as good, Sam
reber g=emc^2
Jan 25, 2016, 7:47:26 PM1/25/16
to
Y.Porat
Jan 26, 2016, 2:29:30 AM1/26/16
to
you are too gentle with that
ANONYMOUS dreck shit animal baboon
criminal thief against mankind !!!
and ISSIS AGENT
Y.P
=================================
callwd HAVAC
Y.Porat
Jan 26, 2016, 2:41:23 AM1/26/16
to
On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 6:13:21 PM UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 1/24/2016 8:27 AM, john wrote:
> > Dark Matter!
> > Haw.
> >
> > Some idiots thought that if the outer stars
> > of galaxies had mass around the galaxy
> > to pull on them as they were
> > coming around, that could explain why
> > they go faster than they should, and they
> > ran with that idea.
> > Forgetting that as soon as the star goes
> > past, it will be decelerated by exactly that
> > same amount.
> > Idiots
> >
>
> How does a star "go past" a dark matter distribution that is spread
> evenly around the circumference of the galaxy?
===========================
> On 1/24/2016 8:27 AM, john wrote:
> > Dark Matter!
> > Haw.
> >
> > Some idiots thought that if the outer stars
> > of galaxies had mass around the galaxy
> > to pull on them as they were
> > coming around, that could explain why
> > they go faster than they should, and they
> > ran with that idea.
> > Forgetting that as soon as the star goes
> > past, it will be decelerated by exactly that
> > same amount.
> > Idiots
> >
>
> How does a star "go past" a dark matter distribution that is spread
> evenly around the circumference of the galaxy?
dirty crook pig P D
why don t you mention the originator of that UNPRECEDENTED assertion/INSIGHT
that
==============================================
SPACE MUST HAVE SOME COMPLETELY EMPTY LOCATIONS
-OR ELSE -NO MOTION WHAT SOEVER COULD NOT BE DONE !!
=====================================================
SEE THE NEW AND ALIKE THAT IN PAST
WAS PUBLISHED HERE
BY AN ANONYMOUS CALLED
Eng Yehiel .Porat
============================
Y.Porat
Jan 26, 2016, 2:45:52 AM1/26/16
to
see my new /old (historic thread
=================================================
SPACE MUST HAVE COMPLETE EMPTY LOCATIONS
OR ELSE
NO MOVEMENT WHATSOEVER COULD NOT BE DONE !!
===========================================
TIA
Y.Porat
===================================
Y.Porat
Jan 26, 2016, 2:47:59 AM1/26/16
to
see the Y Circlon mechanism
Y.Porat
=================================
0 new messages