>>13337775>Those aren't mutually exclusive.I disagree
>The fact that there are stars moving in all directions does not imply that there are an equal number of stars moving in the different directionsYes it does. If they are moving in all directions it's directly implied that at any location the orbits will be isotropic. If not, then the location is anisotropic with regards to orbits and there is a dominant direction.
There are infinite directions. Clearly "all directions" implies an observation of orbits in one area over time where no orbital vector is statistically more significant than another, which necessitates there are very very nearly always stars moving in opposite directions to each other.
>There is usually a dominant directionA galaxy isn't rotating in the case there is no dominant direction which you have now admitted can happen. That was my entire point.
Half of what you are saying is directly proving my point and the other half is secondary cases that I acknowledge are valid but have nothing to do with my point: some galaxies don't rotate.
>Nope. Read the thread. Disk galaxies spin because of tidal torquesYou are clearly the only person who brought up tidal torques as it was mentioned only once and 10 min before your first reply to me.
>Rotation emerges in structure formation simulations without being up in, it is an outcome of collapseI would venture a guess you are overlooking pre-existing anisotropic rotation in these simulations and there is still a chicken before egg problem when it comes to galaxies rotating and on top of that what you are saying here doesn't even make grammatical sense in english.
Your published papers are 40 and 50 years old. That is an eternity in cosmology and it's very strange, even embarrassing, you would even bother to use them. Find something less than 20 years old that has been referenced in other peer review if you want anybody to take you seriously.
