| Author |
Message |
Mark Fergerson
Guest
|
 Posted:
Fri Dec 09, 2005 1:08 am Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
Happy Hippy wrote:
| Quote: | Mark Fergerson wrote:
Mark Martin wrote:
Mark Fergerson wrote:
Your theory dictates chaos.
Nope. "Includes" chaos.
BTW it isn't "my" theory.
Chaos is not equal to order.
I say again, look up "attractor". Chaos theory is quite
consistent with short term (in terms of the lifetime of a galaxy)
order.
It's become evident the last couple of days that John confuses chaos
theory with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. He reads the word
"chaos" and projects "random" onto it.
Ah, that explains it. I also suppose he can't understand how
quantum-scale randomness can become macro-scale determinism.
Tell me, Mark.
First let me tell you how I was on a runway in
a plane at 35 below with 3000 feet of
freezing rain above us which we didn't know
about, a plane with no de-icers, and a pilot
who was just going to 'go for it', and during our
run-ups an oil seal broke so we had to abort.
What kind of q-randomness saved my ass THAT day?
|
Sounds more like "go for it"-boy also likes to neglect his
maintenance. Now I suppose you want to know why the seal failed just
then? Familiar with the term Mean Time Between Failure, and why it's
called that?
| Quote: | I think you have to have your own
experiences of this type to open your
eyes. I have had numerous such. It's like
somebody is always backing my play. (-:
|
You have an exaggerated sense of your own importance.
You also appear, as Mark Martin said, to assume Chaos Theory
means total disorder- the diametric opposite of Determinism, but it
isn't. Chaos Theory is about the predictable patterns discernable in
certain types of macroscopic (originally not quantum-level)
randomness. When first announced it was a terrible shock both to
strict Determinists and Quantum Theorists alike yet it has been
shown to have wide application in both ways of looking at the real
world, whether they (or you) like it or not:
http://www.imho.com/grae/chaos/chaos.html
Incidentally, notice that Chaos Theory is intimately dependent on
fractals. You don't have a conceptual problem with fractals, do you?
I hope not because you're surrounded by examples of them.
This page explains the link between Chaos Theory and fractals a
little better:
http://www.mathjmendl.org/chaos/
It goes back to Poicare's discovery that the Solar System's
behavior is not stable Newtonian-deterministic-wise. I have to ask
you how you can possibly believe that an entire galaxy can be stable
in any particular observed state when our Solar System isn't?
Of course, if your sense of self-importance weren't so overblown
you could have Googled these and more pages to learn from. But you
apparently don't believe you have anything left to learn. That's
kinda sad; you must live in a very boring Universe.
Also kinda sad is that you failed to respond to my earlier
challenges asking you for cites to back up your beliefs re: galactic
arms; maybe you're waiting for "somebody" to do it for you?
BTW, there's a serious problem with trying to build a worldview
solely on one's own experiences; you can't live long enough to
experience everything (not to mention all the stuff you missed
before being born), nor can you replicate many experiences to see if
they might have gone differently. For that matter you can't
replicate an experienced event so that someone else can have the
same experience, period. I've had _lots_ of experiences I refuse to
cite as evidence for anything no matter what I may think they mean;
that's one major difference between science and whatever the hell it
is you're doing.
Wanna talk about LSD trips? FTM, wanna talk about
perfectly-straight "paranormal" experiences? I've had plenty of
both, but they won't mean squat to anyone else because they're
impossible to replicate for other people.
Mark L. Fergerson
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Sam Wormley
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Dec 09, 2005 1:35 am Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
Happy Hippy wrote:
| Quote: | Hell, stars are going nova all the time- its part of their
cycle.
|
Only stars of about 10 solar masses or more can experience
a core collapse resulting in a supernova.
And only white dwarfs accreting gas from a companion, slowly
enough, experience novae on their surfaces and can to so
more than once. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sam Wormley
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Keith Williams
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:35 am Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
In article <xW0mf.604657$x96.128981@attbi_s72>, swormley1@mchsi.com
says...
| Quote: | Happy Hippy wrote:
Hell, stars are going nova all the time- its part of their
cycle.
Only stars of about 10 solar masses or more can experience
a core collapse resulting in a supernova.
|
Nova <> supernova. Sol will nova in a few billion years.
| Quote: | And only white dwarfs accreting gas from a companion, slowly
enough, experience novae on their surfaces and can to so
more than once.
|
Cite. From what I remember of Astronomy all stars will nova. Sol
will expand to roughly the size of Mars' orbit before it fades into
white dwarfism.
--
Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Keith Williams
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Dec 09, 2005 5:35 pm Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
In article <lm8mf.613785$_o.355057@attbi_s71>, swormley1@mchsi.com
says...
| Quote: | Keith Williams wrote:
Cite. From what I remember of Astronomy all stars will nova. Sol will
expand to roughly the size of Mars' orbit before it fades into white dwarfism.
You are confusing nova with red giant phase of many stars.
Nope. As it collapses into white dwarfism it'll shed it's outer |
layers; nova.
Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sam Wormley
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Keith Williams
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Dec 10, 2005 5:35 pm Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
In article <rYimf.609737$x96.568545@attbi_s72>, swormley1@mchsi.com
says...
| Quote: | Keith Williams wrote:
Nope. As it collapses into white dwarfism it'll shed it's outer
layers; nova.
Keith -- You are confusing nova with red giant phase of many stars.
The word "nova" has a well defined meaning in astronomy--the explosive
"burning" of hydrogen gas on the surface of a white dwarf.
|
No, I'm certainly not confusing the two. As a red-giant collapses
the shock waves will compress and "ignite" the hydrogen (perhaps
helium - can't remember) causing the nova.
I'm not sure about Barnard's, but most white dwarfs have already
passed through the red giant -> collapse -> nova -> white dwarf
stage. Those that weren't big enough to make this transitions are
brown dwarfs.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sam Wormley
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Dec 11, 2005 1:35 am Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
Keith Williams wrote:
| Quote: | In article <rYimf.609737$x96.568545@attbi_s72>, swormley1@mchsi.com
says...
Keith Williams wrote:
Nope. As it collapses into white dwarfism it'll shed it's outer
layers; nova.
Keith -- You are confusing nova with red giant phase of many stars.
The word "nova" has a well defined meaning in astronomy--the explosive
"burning" of hydrogen gas on the surface of a white dwarf.
No, I'm certainly not confusing the two. As a red-giant collapses
the shock waves will compress and "ignite" the hydrogen (perhaps
helium - can't remember) causing the nova.
|
Unfortunately you "remember" wrong... go to the library!
Barnard's star has about a tenth on the Sun's mass and is a
main sequence star happily fusing hydrogen into helium via
the pp-chain in it's core.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in