| Author |
Message |
Happy Hippy
Guest
|
 Posted:
Thu Nov 24, 2005 1:35 am Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
| Quote: | 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/
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mark Martin
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 24, 2005 7:48 am Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
Happy Hippy wrote:
| Quote: | 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. (-:
|
Hmmm. This reminds me of those racial stereotype injuns I used to
see in old, cheap westerns. (And cartoons. Don't forget the cartoons!)
-Mark Martin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hanson
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 24, 2005 9:35 am Post subject:
Re: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
[hanson]
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... why did argue you with me, Jako? Equn.
m_p = [c^2/2G]*[sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)]*[I_H/(f_L*F)]*(3*pi^2)*sqrt(2a)
m_e = [c^2/G] * [sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)] * [1/(f_L*F)] * a*pi*sqrt(3)/3.
.... are creatures of Lyman, Faraday, Newton, Planck and Arnie, etc....
They rule!.. They rock, dude! See below, but DON'T let'em crank you!!
| Quote: |
Jako Epke aka "Old Man" <nomail@nomail.net> wrote in message |
news:xv2dnXnVLNsOcRnenZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@prairiewave.com...
news:HcedndHMsvmGCR7eRVn-gQ@prairiewave.com...
| Quote: | "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote in message news:%cTgf.1120$R42.608@trnddc01...
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.design/msg/53371ffd43fe32b9
[hanson]
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
===== [Jako comm.1 see below]
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
===== [Jako comm.2 see below]
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 comm.1 ]
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.
===== [Jako comm.2]
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.
[hanson] |
.... ahahaha... AHAHAHA... why are you getting so defensive,
Jako, to the point of sounding jealous? You tell me that you
need 2 theories, QM and GTR, (being not compatible, to boot)
to give you a side-step-argument to come up with "if/thens" and
">>" guesses... which then require the need for you to calculate
with "(in stupid units of c = G = 1)"...while you are forced to invoke
quarks that nobody has ever seen... only to finally declare the issue
as irrelevant. ... ahAHAHA... Why all that palaver, Jako, when I gave
you ONE equation that brings out distinct black hole characteristics
AND a quite accurate mass amount... based on 2 principles which
are much more fundamental then your 2 incompatible theories:
::: 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.
::P:: m_p = [c^2/2G]*[sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)]*[I_H/(f_L*F)]*(3*pi^2)*sqrt(2a)
::E:: m_e = [c^2/G] * [sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)] * [1/(f_L*F)] * a*pi*sqrt(3)/3
These eqautions, ::P:: & ::E::, they rock, when compared to yours, dude!
Semiseriously, Jako, can't you see or don't want to admit that I simply
used a DIFFERENT TOOL, a different instrument, then you did, to tell a
story about a the same event? There are always very many different
ways to skin the cat!... Only religious folks believe differently... ahaha...
So, let me reiterate for your benefit what I had said at the end of the
post below: ........"I love these mind games!"... ahahaha... AHAHAHA...
Remember, Jako, the great Max Planck had a view akin, him saying:
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest
is poetry, imagination." -- Max Planck..... (Thanks Greg Hansen,)
| 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]
===== [hanson comm.1 see below]
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
===== [hanson comm.1 see below] |
..... and now go forth and invent a new cosmology! ... AHAHAHAHA....
| Quote: | ahahahaha.... I love these mind games!..... ahahaha... hanson
[hanson] |
===== [hanson comm.1}
Pick on this paragraph above Jako!!
You believe that a M_pl BH disappears in T_pl. So, why does it
disappear and where will your M_pl BH go to?... ahaha...
Jako, I, just see things differently then you do... and I ENJOY it, Jako.
.... And one of these days I will, (fancy depending) even produce the
quantitative value for the half-life of a free neutron from the 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.
Maybe I'll throw in the scaling laws to make my instrument pointier.
ahahaha... AHAHAHA.....Take care and have fun, Jako!
ahahaha... ahahanson
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Happy Hippy
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 24, 2005 5:35 pm Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
Don Bowey wrote:
| Quote: | On 11/23/05 2:00 PM, in article 4384e66c$1@news.accesscomm.ca, "Happy Hippy"
J0HN@accesscomm.ca> wrote:
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.
Sam: "Dogs and cats have absolutely no relationship." |
John: "But.but.......but, Sam.........they are both
mammals, they are both pets, they both have four legs,
they are similar morphologically in most ways (except
a cat's clavicle is unarticulated to the rest of its
skeleton), etc, etc."
Sam: "Dimes and quarters have no relationship- whatsoever."
John: "Flat. Round. Money. Metal. etc, etc."
You guys need some help in pattern-recognition.
This is crucial, because Science is mostly about
pattern-recognition.
You are pattern-recognition challenged.
This may be because you learned by rote.
Not a good idea.
John |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Sefton
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 25, 2005 12:23 am Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
Mark Martin wrote:
| Quote: | 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.
-Mark Martin
|
So, you have some (questionable) numbers and they
don't add up. Perhaps that large volume outside of
the calculated S. radius is full of dark matter!!??
Or fuckin fairies. Or currents of Dark Energy!!
And they *always* surround protons in precise
tori to make our mass add up and our incredibly
stupid gravity theory still appear to work. All you
guys need are loinclothes and a missionary to put
in your pot.
Black Holes are at galaxies' centers.
Galaxies exist singly or in various modes of association
including large clusters.
So do atoms.
Galaxies are mostly space.
So are atoms.
Galaxies' central nuclei are very dense compared to the rest
of the structure.
So are atoms'.
Galaxies occupy a spherical region of space ( they
have spherical 'halos' of stars.)
So do atoms.
Galaxies interact with each other.
So do atoms.
Excited galaxies give off energy packets. (They are
observed to release Quasars.)
Excited atoms give off photons.
So.........you say your numbers disagree?
Maybe it's D.M. or D.E., like I said. Or fairies.
Or, hey, hey, maybe God is fuckin with your mind,
man!! (-:
John
Galaxy Model for the Atom
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Martin
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 25, 2005 1:04 am Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
John Sefton wrote:
| Quote: | So, you have some (questionable) numbers and they
don't add up. Perhaps that large volume outside of
the calculated S. radius is full of dark matter!!??
Or fuckin fairies. Or currents of Dark Energy!!
And they *always* surround protons in precise
tori to make our mass add up and our incredibly
stupid gravity theory still appear to work. All you
guys need are loinclothes and a missionary to put
in your pot.
|
Speaking of pot, have you any? Wait... What am I thinking? Of course
YOU have some.
-Mark Martin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Happy Hippy
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 25, 2005 1:35 am Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
Mark Martin wrote:
| Quote: | John Sefton wrote:
So, you have some (questionable) numbers and they
don't add up. Perhaps that large volume outside of
the calculated S. radius is full of dark matter!!??
Or fuckin fairies. Or currents of Dark Energy!!
And they *always* surround protons in precise
tori to make our mass add up and our incredibly
stupid gravity theory still appear to work. All you
guys need are loinclothes and a missionary to put
in your pot.
Speaking of pot, have you any? Wait... What am I thinking? Of course
YOU have some.
-Mark Martin
no |
out
)-: |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Old Man
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 25, 2005 1:35 am Post subject:
Re: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
"hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote in message
news:sFbhf.718$mJ2.186@trnddc02...
| Quote: | [hanson]
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... why did argue you with me, Jako? Equn.
m_p = [c^2/2G]*[sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)]*[I_H/(f_L*F)]*(3*pi^2)*sqrt(2a)
m_e = [c^2/G] * [sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)] * [1/(f_L*F)] * a*pi*sqrt(3)/3.
... are creatures of Lyman, Faraday, Newton, Planck and Arnie, etc....
They rule!.. They rock, dude! See below, but DON'T let'em crank you!!
|
Is the proton a black hole ?
A (internal) "toroidal" mass distribution (an external 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, but not in stupid units of c = G = 1. Put the
c's and G's back in, and then tell Old Man if the given
inequalities are true.
[Old Man] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sam Wormley
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 25, 2005 7:42 am Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
John Sefton wrote:
| Quote: |
Black Holes are at galaxies' centers.
|
Super massive black holes are found in many galaxies, but not all.
| Quote: | Galaxies exist singly or in various modes of association
including large clusters.
|
There are some far away from associations... not many but some.
| Quote: | So do atoms.
Galaxies are mostly space.
|
Most everything in the universe is mostly empty space....
| Quote: | So are atoms.
Galaxies' central nuclei are very dense compared to the rest
of the structure.
So are atoms'.
Galaxies occupy a spherical region of space ( they
have spherical 'halos' of stars.)
|
Many Many galaxies are flattened disks... Many are irregular...
Atoms have interesting shapes due to a variety of orbitals...
| Quote: | Galaxies interact with each other.
|
Everything in the universe interacts gravitationally...
| Quote: | So do atoms.
Excited galaxies give off energy packets. (They are
observed to release Quasars.)
|
Quasars are black holes irradiated by infalling matter.
| Quote: | Excited atoms give off photons.
So.........you say your numbers disagree?
Maybe it's D.M. or D.E., like I said. Or fairies.
Or, hey, hey, maybe God is fuckin with your mind,
man!! (-:
|
Galaxies and atoms 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 |
|
|
Sam Wormley
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 25, 2005 7:46 am Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
Hippity Hoppity wrote:
| Quote: | Sam: "Dogs and cats have absolutely no relationship."
John: "But.but.......but, Sam.........they are both
mammals, they are both pets, they both have four legs,
they are similar morphologically in most ways (except
a cat's clavicle is unarticulated to the rest of its
skeleton), etc, etc."
Sam: "Dimes and quarters have no relationship- whatsoever."
John: "Flat. Round. Money. Metal. etc, etc."
You guys need some help in pattern-recognition.
This is crucial, because Science is mostly about
pattern-recognition.
You are pattern-recognition challenged.
This may be because you learned by rote.
Not a good idea.
John
|
Galaxies and atoms 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).
Thanks, John, for registering at crank dot net
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22GALAXY+MODEL+For+The+ATOM%22+site%3Awww.crank.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob Monsen
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 26, 2005 1:35 am Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 16:00:28 -0600, Happy Hippy wrote:
A theory is an abstract, incomplete view of things. The more incomplete it
is, the more things it applies to. Feynman pointed out that the process of
science is NOT to make our view of things simpler, but to make them more
precise, and thus more complicated. The art of science is making things
"as simple as possible, but not simpler" (Einstein).
---
Regards,
Bob Monsen
Mathematics takes us still further from what is human, into the region of
absolute necessity, to which not only the actual world, but every possible
world, must conform.
- Bertrand Russell |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kevin Aylward
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 26, 2005 4:58 pm Post subject:
Re: A proton is more of a virtual field than a physical part |
|
|
Jeff_Relf 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.
|
This makes little sense to me.
"virtual" is associated with something that does not *physically* exist.
If it doesn't physically exist, it doesn't exist. End of story.
"Proton" is a name used for the set of measurements of an entity that
exits. Whether or not a proton is actually what we think of as a
particle is irrelevant. The entity that "proton" refers to exists, by
definition. That is, we can make physical measurements of it. The entity
has physical characteristics. We call that set of real, physical
measurements a "proton". A "proton" therefore physically exits. That's
what we mean by existence. It has measurable properties.
Kevin Aylward
431infoEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rich Grise, Plainclothes
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Nov 27, 2005 1:35 am Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 12:36:10 -0800, Mark Martin wrote:
| Quote: | 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.
|
Well, I guess that settles that. :-)
Thanks!
Rich |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Happy Hippy
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Nov 27, 2005 9:00 am Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
| Quote: | Hippity Hoppity wrote:
Sam: "Dogs and cats have absolutely no relationship."
John: "But.but.......but, Sam.........they are both
mammals, they are both pets, they both have four legs,
they are similar morphologically in most ways (except
a cat's clavicle is unarticulated to the rest of its
skeleton), etc, etc."
Sam: "Dimes and quarters have no relationship- whatsoever."
John: "Flat. Round. Money. Metal. etc, etc."
You guys need some help in pattern-recognition.
This is crucial, because Science is mostly about
pattern-recognition.
You are pattern-recognition challenged.
This may be because you learned by rote.
Not a good idea.
John
Galaxies and atoms 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).
Thanks, John, for registering at crank dot net
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22GALAXY+MODEL+For+The+ATOM%22+site%3Awww.crank.net
You guys need some help in pattern-recognition.
This is crucial, because Science is mostly about
pattern-recognition.
You are pattern-recognition challenged.
This may be because you learned by rote.
Not a good idea.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sam Wormley
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Nov 27, 2005 9:11 am Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
Hippity Hoppity wrote:
| Quote: | Sam Wormley wrote:
Hippity Hoppity wrote:
Sam: "Dogs and cats have absolutely no relationship."
John: "But.but.......but, Sam.........they are both
mammals, they are both pets, they both have four legs,
they are similar morphologically in most ways (except
a cat's clavicle is unarticulated to the rest of its
skeleton), etc, etc."
Sam: "Dimes and quarters have no relationship- whatsoever."
John: "Flat. Round. Money. Metal. etc, etc."
You guys need some help in pattern-recognition.
This is crucial, because Science is mostly about
pattern-recognition.
You are pattern-recognition challenged.
This may be because you learned by rote.
Not a good idea.
John
Galaxies and atoms 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).
Thanks, John, for registering at crank dot net
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22GALAXY+MODEL+For+The+ATOM%22+site%3Awww.crank.net
You guys need some help in pattern-recognition.
This is crucial, because Science is mostly about
pattern-recognition.
You are pattern-recognition challenged.
This may be because you learned by rote.
Not a good idea.
|
Too bad you, John, think that there is similarity of pattern
between atoms and galaxies. Can you describe the pattern of
an atom? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in