| Author |
Message |
Jeff_Relf
Guest
|
 Posted:
Wed Nov 23, 2005 8:06 am Post subject:
A proton is more of a virtual field than a physical particle |
|
|
Hi Ignoramus1487 and Rich_Grise, Ignoramus wrote:
Since the mass and "size" of protons is about the same as neutrons,
and we know that densely packed "neutron matter" does not collapse,
we can conclude that protons are not miniature black holes.
No one knows the density of a proton, even its location is not well known,
it's more of a virtual field than a physical particle.
All the same, I think its density, whatever it might be,
is a remnant of earlier, much greater densities.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
zzbunker@netscape.net
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Nov 23, 2005 8:49 am Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
brian a m stuckless wrote:
| Quote: | $ "Micro" means "orders of magnitude smaller"-LiKE ..duh.
The MORE "orders of magnitude smaller" ..the MORE micro a Black Hole.
[ A GR-WORLD-point CANNOT exhibit SiZE or SHAPE, on GR-WORLD-lines. ]
[ There are NO Black Holes with mass in GR ..G_uv & T_uv UNrelated. ]
[ THEREfore, any GR Black Hole was, AGAiN, simply a GR-WORLD-point. ]
Mark Martin wrote: > > Rich Grise, Plainclothes Hippie wrote:
Hi. :-)
I'm about to embark on a websearch that could ultimately tell
me some of the numbers about protons and black holes.
Everybody's heard of a proton, right?
And practically everybody (at least english-speaking internet
geeks) has heard of a black hole, right?
I wonder if anybody's done comparative numbers on the effective
mass vs. dimensions of the two. Like, are they conceptually
equivalent, or could, maybe, protons (and their sisters,
neutrons) actually _BE_ teeny, tiny, infinitesimallyy smalll
BLACK HOLES?????
Although a proton has no well defined radius, it is true
that the quarks occupy a region with a radius of at least
1.2 x 10^-15 m. A proton has a mass of 1.675 x 10^-27 kg, for
which the Swarzschild radius is 39 orders of magnitude smaller
than the proton radius I've given. So no, a proton isn't a
micro-black hole.
|
Protons are anti-black holes though.
Since Hawking radiation wouldn't exist
if protons were'nt anti-black holes.
| Quote: |
-Mark Martin
$ "Micro" means "orders of magnitude smaller"-LiKE ..duh.
The MORE "orders of magnitude smaller" ..the MORE micro a Black Hole.
[ A GR-WORLD-point CANNOT exhibit SiZE or SHAPE, on GR-WORLD-lines. ]
[ There are NO Black Holes with mass in GR ..G_uv & T_uv UNrelated. ]
[ THEREfore, any GR Black Hole was, AGAiN, simply a GR-WORLD-point. ]
|
GR can't ANYTIHNG in it except TENSORS.
Which is why the only people who erven use it are
the Tensors wanks in internet and sci.phyics.
.. Snice it doesn't even have light in it,
it's only got evaporating fields.
| Quote: | brian a m stuckless
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignoramus1487
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Nov 23, 2005 9:35 am Post subject:
Re: A proton is more of a virtual field than a physical part |
|
|
On 23 Nov 2005 02:06:53 GMT, Jeff_Relf <Me@Privacy.NET> wrote:
| Quote: |
Hi Ignoramus1487 and Rich_Grise, Ignoramus wrote:
Since the mass and "size" of protons is about the same as neutrons,
and we know that densely packed "neutron matter" does not collapse,
we can conclude that protons are not miniature black holes.
No one knows the density of a proton, even its location is not well known,
it's more of a virtual field than a physical particle.
|
That's right, that's why I put the word "size" in quotes.
i
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hanson
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Nov 23, 2005 9:35 am Post subject:
Re: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
Jako Epke aka "Old Man" <nomail@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:HcedndHMsvmGCR7eRVn-gQ@prairiewave.com...
| Quote: | "Rich Grise, Plainclothes Hippie" <fff@example.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.11.22.18.25.27.106539@example.com...
I'm about to embark on a websearch that could ultimately tell me some
of the numbers about protons and black holes.
I wonder if anybody's done comparative numbers on the effective mass
vs. dimensions of the two. Like, are they conceptually equivalent,
or could, maybe, protons (and their sisters, neutrons) actually _BE_
teeny, tiny, infinitesimallyy smalll BLACK HOLES?????
[Jako]
The nucleon-nucleon force isn't that of gravitation.
[hanson] |
But Jako, Grise is not asking about that. He, AFAICS does want
to know whether nucleons could be (described as) black holes.
However, despite the nebulous answers from the other posters,
speculations in these realms and domains can be done in so
very many ways & fashions, that one can conjecture & look at all
these processes and events with equal validity, as long as the dims
and the digits do fit. i.e. ..... I can produce a picture/conjecture that
delivers an estimate to the OP's question that Protons can be described
as quantum black holes in a fashion that's based on two self-evident
principles:
a) Nature is self-similar over all observable domains.
b) The unit systems (cgs etc) is internally self-consistent and all
fundamental physical constants must be expressible by/thru/with
combinations of other ones.
With that in mind, the proton(mass), m_p, can easily be expressed
in terms of being a black hole:
m_p, the proton mass, is a torus type construct that is a blackhole
of one (1) Plancklength radius across to its Schwarzschild event
horizon which is shrouded within an outer Coulomb type accretion
zone of EM charge energy (F, Faraday, not Farad) that interacts with
other charges which produce the measurable effects of the 13.5 eV
H-ionization potential and its associated Lyman series limit frequency.
Here is the QUANTITATIVE equation:
m_p = Schw.radius * Plank length * Coulomb/radiation parameters.
m_p = [c^2/2G]*[sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)]*[I_H/(f_L*F)]*(3*pi^2)*sqrt(2a)
m_p = 1.67E-24 gr (so, argue with the numbers not with me...ahaha)
In other words still, it says:
The Hydrogen nucleus (m_p) is a black hole with [***]
--- the classical Schwartzschild limit or event horizon of (c^2/2G) at
--- a radius of 1 Planck length sqrt(hG/2pi*c^3) and is shrouded in
--- a substance-characteristic Coulomb mantle, being the product of,
--- the H-Ionisation potential multiplier of 13.5
..... [I_H=4pi^4*sqrt(a)/sqrt(6)],
--- the Lyman series frequency limit (f_L), and
--- the Faraday Constant (F, the charge transfer handler),
..... and is further governed by
--- toroidal geometry demands of (3*pi^2) and
--- EM/QM fine structure conditions set by [sqrt(2*a)].
[***] Consider the distance between this event horizon and the larger,
classically measured H-radius as the "nuclear accretion zone" analog.
In case of leptons, here the electron m_e, the e-shell Ionization-potential
considerations do fall away and the situation changes to:
m_e = [c^2/G] * [sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)] * [1/(f_L*F)] * a*pi*sqrt(3)/3
m_e = 9.09E-28 gr
It says essentially the same as above, except that as already noted ,
there are no ionization considerations and that the electron's geometry
is spherical (instead of toroidal as in the composite H-atom)
Also, it indicates that the electron may be a rotating Kerr black hole
type character with the Kerr- [c^2/G] (instead of the Schwartzschild
[c^2/2G]) event horizon.
| Quote: |
Now figure out and post the equations for m_n, the neutron and |
other particles and cough up a numerical table for mass spectrum
(with having set the electron mass m_e as "One", 1, for comparison)
| Quote: |
[Jako to Rich Grise]
The nucleon-nucleon force isn't that of gravitation.
The N-N force has repulsive, as well as attractive,
components. The size of the repulsive core is many
orders of magnitude larger than the Schwarzschild
radius for a black hole of the same mass. At typical
N-N distances in nuclei, the attractive component is
much stronger than that of gravitation.
The deuteron couldn't be held together by gravitation.
Hawking hypothesizes that a black hole with mass
less than ~ 10^(-8) kg (Planck mass, M_pl) would decay
very rapidly (Planck time, T_pl). Nucleon mass is many
orders of magnitude less than this.
[hanson] |
In a way, right, deuterons and other combo particle are not held
glued together by gravitation alone, but if the Planck mass M_pl is
a black hole then is not ordinary matter any longer and it, like all
other black hole matter, large or small, is shut off from the visible
universe by definition and I would change your statement from
"decaying rapidly" into a corollary to the "virtual QM game" & say:
".... a black hole with mass less than ~ 10^(-8) kg (Planck mass,
M_pl) may pop in and out of a (Dirac's) virtual particle sea in very
rapid intervals with flash durations lasting only 1 Planck time, T_pl.
.... to which I might add now that, based on my above quantitative
conjecture, a process (unknown?) is working here that grabs and
enshrines these emergent Planck masses with EM-quanta, which
gives them long, very long life times and makes them interactive
with and visible to other like siblings.... and now go forth and invent
a new cosmology! ... AHAHAHAHA.... I love these mind games!.....
ahahaha... hanson |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Happy Hippy
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Nov 23, 2005 9:35 am Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
Rich Grise, Plainclothes Hippie wrote:
| Quote: | Hi. :-)
I'm about to embark on a websearch that could ultimately tell me some
of the numbers about protons and black holes.
Everybody's heard of a proton, right?
And practically everybody (at least english-speaking internet geeks)
has heard of a black hole, right?
I wonder if anybody's done comparative numbers on the effective mass
vs. dimensions of the two. Like, are they conceptually equivalent,
or could, maybe, protons (and their sisters, neutrons) actually _BE_
teeny, tiny, infinitesimallyy smalll BLACK HOLES?????
Thanks,
Rich
Yes. |
That's exactly what the Galaxy Model says:
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/
Galaxies are the same thing as atoms.
The nuclei of galaxies (the so-called
'Black Hole') are the same thing as the protons
at the center of atoms.
The electrons of atoms are the same thing as
the arms of stars around galaxies, and they, too,
are made of still smaller atoms with...........
wait for it........still smaller 'Black Holes'/protons
at *their* centers.
Proceed upward or downward as far as you want with
this- the ultimate fractals.
John |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
brian a m stuckless
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Nov 23, 2005 9:35 am Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
carlip-nospam@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote: >
| Quote: | In sci.physics Rich Grise, Plainclothes Hippie <fff@example.com> wrote:
Hi. :-)
I'm about to embark on a websearch that could ultimately tell me some
of the numbers about protons and black holes.
Everybody's heard of a proton, right?
And practically everybody (at least english-speaking internet geeks)
has heard of a black hole, right?
I wonder if anybody's done comparative numbers on the effective mass
vs. dimensions of the two. Like, are they conceptually equivalent,
or could, maybe, protons (and their sisters, neutrons) actually _BE_
teeny, tiny, infinitesimallyy smalll BLACK HOLES?????
A charged black hole has a maximum charge-to-mass ratio, and a spinning
black hole has a maximum angular momentum-to-mass ratio. --
|
$ "Micro" means "orders of magnitude smaller"-LiKE ..duh.
The MORE "orders of magnitude smaller" ..the MORE micro a Black Hole.
[ A GR-WORLD-point CANNOT exhibit SiZE or SHAPE, on GR-WORLD-lines. ]
[ There are NO Black Holes with mass in GR ..G_uv & T_uv UNrelated. ]
[ THEREfore, any GR Black Hole was, AGAiN, simply a GR-WORLD-point. ]
$ The non-GR Blackhole mass M1
[ A GR Schwartzchild "radius" 2*G*M1 / c^2 is NOT a GR calculation. ]
[ Mathematically speaking there is NO constraint on non-GR mass M1. ]
[ Mathematically speaking the 2*G*M1 / c^2 is 2*G*(ANY mass) / c^2. ]
[ Mathematically speaking the 2*G*M1 / c^2 fits 2*G*(PROTON) / c^2. ]
YES, any PROTON is a TRUE micro-Blackhole, mathematically speaking.!!
brian a m stuckless
| Quote: |
-- If these are
exceeded, you don't have an event horizon, but instead have a "naked
singularity."
The charges and spins of all known elementary particles far exceed this
maximum value.
So, no, the proton can't be a black hole.
Steve Carlip
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dr Photon
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Nov 23, 2005 5:35 pm Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
Rich Grise, Plainclothes Hippie wrote:
| Quote: | I wonder if anybody's done comparative numbers on the effective >mass
vs. dimensions of the two. Like, are they conceptually equivalent,
or could, maybe, protons (and their sisters, neutrons) actually _BE_
teeny, tiny, infinitesimallyy smalll BLACK HOLES?????
|
Even Einstein had a go at stuff like this
http://www.krioma.net/articles/Bridge%20Theory/Einstein%20Rosen%20Bridge.htm
"The purpose of the paper of Einstein and Rosen was not to promote
faster-than-light or inter-universe travel, but to attempt to explain
fundamental particles like electrons as space-tunnels threaded by
electric lines of force."
but it had too many objections and not enough solutions to catch on.
br |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Nov 23, 2005 5:35 pm Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
I didn't know they named a bridge after the two. What city is it
in????? Is the traffic on it usually pretty fast? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sam Wormley
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Nov 23, 2005 5:35 pm Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
Hippity Hoppity wrote:
| Quote: | Galaxies are the same thing as atoms.
|
They have no relationship, whatsoever.
If you want to make progress understanding atoms and the particles
involved, including interaction with light, you can only make progress
with quantum mechanics.
If you want to make progress understanding galactic structure and
behavior, the tool to use is general relativity (including Newtonian
mechanics and the assumption of dark matter). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignoramus22022
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Nov 23, 2005 5:35 pm Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 15:29:14 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Hippity Hoppity wrote:
Galaxies are the same thing as atoms.
They have no relationship, whatsoever.
If you want to make progress understanding atoms and the particles
involved, including interaction with light, you can only make progress
with quantum mechanics.
If you want to make progress understanding galactic structure and
behavior, the tool to use is general relativity (including Newtonian
mechanics and the assumption of dark matter).
|
I think that generalizations such as "galaxies are just like atoms"
are misleading and confusing. They are mostly not like atoms.
i |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Happy Hippy
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 24, 2005 12:38 am Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
Ignoramus22022 wrote:
| Quote: | On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 15:29:14 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote:
Hippity Hoppity wrote:
Galaxies are the same thing as atoms.
They have no relationship, whatsoever.
If you want to make progress understanding atoms and the particles
involved, including interaction with light, you can only make progress
with quantum mechanics.
If you want to make progress understanding galactic structure and
behavior, the tool to use is general relativity (including Newtonian
mechanics and the assumption of dark matter).
I think that generalizations such as "galaxies are just like atoms"
are misleading and confusing. They are mostly not like atoms.
i
OK. |
Galaxies are *exactly* like atoms.
(Except for scale.)
How's that?
John
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sam Wormley
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 24, 2005 12:50 am Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
Hippity Hoppity wrote:
| Quote: | OK.
Galaxies are *exactly* like atoms.
(Except for scale.)
|
They have no relationship, whatsoever.
If you want to make progress understanding atoms and the particles
involved, including interaction with light, you can only make progress
with quantum mechanics.
If you want to make progress understanding galactic structure and
behavior, the tool to use is general relativity (including Newtonian
mechanics and the assumption of dark matter). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Henry Haapalainen
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 24, 2005 1:35 am Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
"brian a m stuckless" <bastuck@nf.sympatico.ca> kirjoitti viestissä
news:4383EE9C.6D72@nf.sympatico.ca...
| Quote: | carlip-nospam@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
In sci.physics Rich Grise, Plainclothes Hippie <fff@example.com> wrote:
Hi. :-)
I'm about to embark on a websearch that could ultimately tell me some
of the numbers about protons and black holes.
That's how it is in falling space theory, but those black holes have no |
electrical charce by itself.
http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/
Henry Haapalainen |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Old Man
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 24, 2005 1:35 am Post subject:
Re: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
"hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote in message
news:%cTgf.1120$R42.608@trnddc01...
| Quote: | Jako Epke aka "Old Man" <nomail@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:HcedndHMsvmGCR7eRVn-gQ@prairiewave.com...
"Rich Grise, Plainclothes Hippie" <fff@example.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.11.22.18.25.27.106539@example.com...
I'm about to embark on a websearch that could ultimately tell me some
of the numbers about protons and black holes.
I wonder if anybody's done comparative numbers on the effective mass
vs. dimensions of the two. Like, are they conceptually equivalent,
or could, maybe, protons (and their sisters, neutrons) actually _BE_
teeny, tiny, infinitesimallyy smalll BLACK HOLES?????
[Jako]
The nucleon-nucleon force isn't that of gravitation.
[hanson]
But Jako, Grise is not asking about that. He, AFAICS does want
to know whether nucleons could be (described as) black holes.
|
The OP wants to know if the nucleon-nucleon potential
can exhibit a repulsive core of size ~ 10^(-13) cm while
nucleon mass / energy is localized within a Schwarzschild
radius of 10^(-52) cm. Go figure.
| Quote: | However, despite the nebulous answers from the other posters,
speculations in these realms and domains can be done in so
very many ways & fashions, that one can conjecture & look at all
these processes and events with equal validity, as long as the dims
and the digits do fit. i.e. ..... I can produce a picture/conjecture that
delivers an estimate to the OP's question that Protons can be described
as quantum black holes in a fashion that's based on two self-evident
principles:
a) Nature is self-similar over all observable domains.
b) The unit systems (cgs etc) is internally self-consistent and all
fundamental physical constants must be expressible by/thru/with
combinations of other ones.
With that in mind, the proton(mass), m_p, can easily be expressed
in terms of being a black hole:
m_p, the proton mass, is a torus type construct
|
A "toroidal" mass distribution (mass quadrupole
moment) is what GTR predicts for a rotating black
hole. The black hole's angular momentum is
limited by J < M^2 (in stupid units of c = G = 1).
The proton has J = hbar / 2. Therefore,
sqrt( hbar / 2 ) < m_proton
If the electron is a black hole, then
sqrt( hbar / 2 ) < m_electron
Go figure.
| Quote: | that is a blackhole
of one (1) Plancklength radius across to its Schwarzschild event
horizon which is shrouded within an outer Coulomb type accretion
zone of EM charge energy
|
Shrouded ? e^2 >> G (m_p)^2. hanson needs to
calculate the quantity of charge that can be bound
within radius, r_proton (known charge radius ~ 1 fm),
by a black hole of mass, m_proton.
What hanson is doing here is futile. The proton is
known to be a composite particle. The forces
between the constituents are much greater than those
of gravitation. The question of whether or not the
constituents (quarks) are black holes is irrelevant.
| Quote: | (F, Faraday, not Farad) that interacts with
other charges which produce the measurable effects of the 13.5 eV
H-ionization potential and its associated Lyman series limit frequency.
Here is the QUANTITATIVE equation:
m_p = Schw.radius * Plank length * Coulomb/radiation parameters.
m_p = [c^2/2G]*[sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)]*[I_H/(f_L*F)]*(3*pi^2)*sqrt(2a)
m_p = 1.67E-24 gr (so, argue with the numbers not with me...ahaha)
In other words still, it says:
The Hydrogen nucleus (m_p) is a black hole with [***]
--- the classical Schwartzschild limit or event horizon of (c^2/2G) at
--- a radius of 1 Planck length sqrt(hG/2pi*c^3) and is shrouded in
--- a substance-characteristic Coulomb mantle, being the product of,
--- the H-Ionisation potential multiplier of 13.5
.... [I_H=4pi^4*sqrt(a)/sqrt(6)],
--- the Lyman series frequency limit (f_L), and
--- the Faraday Constant (F, the charge transfer handler),
.... and is further governed by
--- toroidal geometry demands of (3*pi^2) and
--- EM/QM fine structure conditions set by [sqrt(2*a)].
[***] Consider the distance between this event horizon and the larger,
classically measured H-radius as the "nuclear accretion zone" analog.
In case of leptons, here the electron m_e, the e-shell
Ionization-potential
considerations do fall away and the situation changes to:
m_e = [c^2/G] * [sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)] * [1/(f_L*F)] * a*pi*sqrt(3)/3
m_e = 9.09E-28 gr
It says essentially the same as above, except that as already noted ,
there are no ionization considerations and that the electron's geometry
is spherical (instead of toroidal as in the composite H-atom)
Also, it indicates that the electron may be a rotating Kerr black hole
type character with the Kerr- [c^2/G] (instead of the Schwartzschild
[c^2/2G]) event horizon.
Now figure out and post the equations for m_n, the neutron and
other particles and cough up a numerical table for mass spectrum
(with having set the electron mass m_e as "One", 1, for comparison)
[Jako to Rich Grise]
The nucleon-nucleon force isn't that of gravitation.
The N-N force has repulsive, as well as attractive,
components. The size of the repulsive core is many
orders of magnitude larger than the Schwarzschild
radius for a black hole of the same mass. At typical
N-N distances in nuclei, the attractive component is
much stronger than that of gravitation.
The deuteron couldn't be held together by gravitation.
Hawking hypothesizes that a black hole with mass
less than ~ 10^(-8) kg (Planck mass, M_pl) would decay
very rapidly (Planck time, T_pl). Nucleon mass is many
orders of magnitude less than this.
[hanson]
In a way, right, deuterons and other combo particle are not held
glued together by gravitation alone, but if the Planck mass M_pl is
a black hole then is not ordinary matter any longer and it, like all
other black hole matter, large or small, is shut off from the visible
universe by definition and I would change your statement from
"decaying rapidly" into a corollary to the "virtual QM game" & say:
".... a black hole with mass less than ~ 10^(-8) kg (Planck mass,
M_pl) may pop in and out of a (Dirac's) virtual particle sea in very
rapid intervals with flash durations lasting only 1 Planck time, T_pl.
... to which I might add now that, based on my above quantitative
conjecture, a process (unknown?) is working here that grabs and
enshrines these emergent Planck masses with EM-quanta, which
gives them long, very long life times and makes them interactive
with and visible to other like siblings.... and now go forth and invent
a new cosmology! ... AHAHAHAHA.... I love these mind games!.....
ahahaha... hanson
|
[Old Man] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don Bowey
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 24, 2005 1:35 am Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
On 11/23/05 2:00 PM, in article 4384e66c$1@news.accesscomm.ca, "Happy Hippy"
<J0HN@accesscomm.ca> wrote:
| Quote: | Sam Wormley wrote:
Hippity Hoppity wrote:
OK.
Galaxies are *exactly* like atoms.
(Except for scale.)
They have no relationship, whatsoever.
If you want to make progress understanding atoms and the particles
involved, including interaction with light, you can only make progress
with quantum mechanics.
If you want to make progress understanding galactic structure and
behavior, the tool to use is general relativity (including Newtonian
mechanics and the assumption of dark matter).
No relationship?
Galaxies are made from atoms.
Galaxies and atoms both have nuclei which are thousands as times as
dense as their surrounding structures.
Galaxies and atoms both inhabit a spherical volume of space.
Galaxies and atoms both undergo reactions with others of their kind
in which parts are exchanged and energy is released.
etc, etc, etc.
No seeum a same-um thing-um? C'mon Sam, here,Sam, c'mere Sam, nice
little Sam-um. There you go, you can think-um a little-um. (-:
John
Galaxy Model for the atom
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/
|
Your logic is...... impeccably like:
A dog is a mammal
A cat is a mammal
Therefore a dog is a cat.
Or
A dime is round and flat
A quarter is round and flat
Therefore a dime is a quarter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in