[Physics] Mathematical proof Maxwell's equations are incorrect?

[mikelawr at freenetname.co.uk]

Tom

I said the rotational rates would not be dfferent. What will be 
different is the actual velocities of the arms because you need to 
separate out the viscosity red shift of the centre and arms, which will 
be the same because they are the same distance from us, from the local 
reference frame where the centre and arms will be different. 
Unfortunately we don't know what the value of any viscosity red shift is 
yet. Because the galaxy as a whole may be closer to us, then the 
distance from centre to arms will be different to that which we 
currently think it is. So with a different radius, but same rotational 
frequency, then the estimaed velocity of the arms will be lower.
Cheers
Mike


On 2020-04-28 14:33, Tom Hollings wrote:
> Mike, I don't understand why the rotational rate of the spiral arms
> would be different if the galaxies were closer. The rotation rate and
> the velocity of a spiral arm is with respect to the central core, and
> do not in any respect depend on the distance to the observer. In this
> case, rotation rate and velocity are the same thing. I know one is
> angular velocity and the other is linear velocity, but if we were to
> look at just the tip of the arm travelling over a small part of the
> galaxy's diameter, or looking outwards from the galaxy centre, the two
> are indistinguishable.
> Or have I missed something?
> 
> Tom.
> 
> 
>> On 27 April 2020 at 23:03 mikelawr at freenetname.co.uk wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Tom,
>> you have good arguments on the distribution of mass across a galaxy, 
>> but
>> if the distance to the galaxy were halved (if that is the percentage
>> that the viscosity red shift accounts for, although I do not say it is
>> that much)then the velocities of the outer arms will be that much 
>> lower
>> since the rotationl rate will not be different.
>> Cheers
>> Mike
>> 
>> On 2020-04-27 13:52, Tom Hollings wrote:
>> > Food for thought there Mike ( I think we have conversed previously),
>> > but I disagree on some points. I agree that the SM is wrong, but for
>> > different reasons. There is no dark matter, DM was designed (invented)
>> > to get over the differences between Einstein's relativity and
>> > observations, especially concerning the rotation of galaxies. The slow
>> > rotation (slower that it should be), can be accounted for using
>> > classical physics, if the correct base line is used. The next
>> > paragraph is from memory as I recently upgraded my PC and lost all
>> > saved internet document addresses.
>> >
>> > The model used for calculating the rotation of galaxies assumed that
>> > galaxies are point sources for gravity, but when the mass of the
>> > galactic arms is considered, and the  gravity distribution along those
>> > arms is taken into account along with the central galactic mass, the
>> > rotational speed is seen to be much slower. Only classical physics is
>> > needed to calculate this. The path of our sun, using the same maths,
>> > can be calculated on its journey across the spiral arm in which we
>> > are.
>> >
>> > You also say "An unmerger event within our only universe goes off
>> > randomly..." Do we take that to mean without cause? If so, it cannot
>> > be, as there can be no effect without cause. There is also something I
>> > read somewhere about two oppositely charged and opposite spin
>> > particles merging, and therefore becoming "invisible".
>> >
>> > Tom Hollings
> 
>> >> Physics mailing list
>> >> Physics at tuks.nl
>> >> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>>