| Author |
Message |
Happy Hippy
Guest
|
 Posted:
Wed Nov 30, 2005 1:35 am Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
| Quote: |
Stars are in Keplerian orbits. Electrons are not and cannot
even be described as having discrete boundaries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron
Does a cloud have a discrete boundary? |
A galactic arm of stars can assume any shape.
Look at some of the galactic interactions.
Are these objects with fluid boundaries?
We have pictures of radio galaxies that
are very obviously precessing because of the
shape of their magnetic jets.
Are those stars following Keplerian orbitals?
The arms in those discs must be accelerating
around *two* axes at once!
John
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Sam Wormley
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Nov 30, 2005 7:49 am Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
Hippity Hoppity wrote:
| Quote: | Sam Wormley wrote:
Stars are in Keplerian orbits. Electrons are not and cannot
even be described as having discrete boundaries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron
A galactic arm of stars can assume any shape.
Look at some of the galactic interactions.
Are these objects with fluid boundaries?
We have pictures of radio galaxies that
are very obviously precessing because of the
shape of their magnetic jets.
Are those stars following Keplerian orbitals?
|
The individual stars are following Keplerian orbits with
one focus at the net gavitational center at every instant. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David Brown
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Nov 30, 2005 4:42 pm Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
John Sefton wrote:
| Quote: | David Brown wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
Too bad you, John, think that there is similarity of pattern
between atoms and galaxies. Can you describe the pattern of
an atom?
Of course there is some similarity between atoms and galaxies - and
also solar systems in between. Any teenager with an imagination and
some interest in physics notices this. Of course, after thinking
about it for a short time, they note that the differences far outweigh
the similarities, and forget about it.
OK David.
Name your 5 main differences that preclude the comparison.
Please.
John
|
The most important differences are due to scale:
On the astronomic scale, gravity is by far the dominant effect. On the
atomic scale, the electromagnetic force is dominant (and also weak and
strong nuclear forces, when you get within the nucleus). These are very
different types of forces, leading to very different patterns.
On the atomic scale, quantum mechanics rules - on the astronomic scale,
relativity rules. One day, someone will figure out a successful and
consistent big toe, but even then the two theories will be very good
approximations in all but the most extreme cases. Among the differences
caused by this, it is not hard to find out where a given star is (or at
least, where it was), whereas it doesn't even make sense to ask where a
particular orbital electron is.
Atoms interact with their environment in many ways, such as partnerships
with neighbouring atoms, or electrons jumping between orbits. Galaxies,
to a large extent, are independent - their relations to other galaxies
are mostly minor due to the distances involved.
Atoms have a core that is totally different in character to the orbitals
- galaxies have no well-defined core, but simply a denser central region.
Atoms come in specific discrete sizes, all with the same spherical shape
(when isolated). Galaxies come in a wide range of shapes and sizes.
Looking at the similarities between galaxies (or more commonly, solar
systems) and atoms can be illustrative at a basic level, but the
similarities end quickly. It's like comparing a bacteria to a person,
and describing the nucleus as the "brain", and flagela as the "arms".
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rich The Philosopher
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Nov 30, 2005 5:35 pm Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 12:42:09 +0200, David Brown wrote:
| Quote: | On the atomic scale, quantum mechanics rules - on the astronomic scale,
relativity rules. One day, someone will figure out a successful and
consistent big toe, but even then the two theories will be very good
approximations in all but the most extreme cases.
|
Well, I've got one, but nobody seems interested in hearing it, probably
because, of necessity, it includes God/Goddess/All That Is, right inside
the same metabox as science and religion and art and philosophy and meat
and potatoes and pizza and sex and drugs and rock & roll. :-) Otherwise,
it clearly wouldn't be a theory of _everything_. :-D
Cheers!
Rich
for further information, please visit http://www.godchannel.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Happy Hippy
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Nov 30, 2005 5:35 pm Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
| Quote: | Hippity Hoppity wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
Stars are in Keplerian orbits. Electrons are not and cannot
even be described as having discrete boundaries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron
A galactic arm of stars can assume any shape.
Look at some of the galactic interactions.
Are these objects with fluid boundaries?
We have pictures of radio galaxies that
are very obviously precessing because of the
shape of their magnetic jets.
Are those stars following Keplerian orbitals?
The individual stars are following Keplerian orbits with
one focus at the net gavitational center at every instant.
|
Conic sections they may be, but the
cone is also orbitting.
John |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Martin
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Nov 30, 2005 5:35 pm Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
Happy Hippy wrote:
| Quote: | Conic sections they may be, but the
cone is also orbitting.
|
[[[*Hey, John. I'm talking in a whisper so no one else can hear and
you won't be made an even bigger fool in public than you've already
made yourself... So here's the scoop: Keplerian orbits are conic
sections 'cause -get this- 'cause those shapes can be made by slicing
through a cone at various angles. But those shapes can also be made in
other ways without -get this- without cones. John, please make a note
of this... There's-no-gigantic-cone-out-in-space. There's no -get this-
no cone orbiting anything. Hope this helps. I really do. I'm praying
-get this- praying for you John.*]]]
-Mark Martin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tadchem
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Dec 01, 2005 12:23 am Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
Rich The Philosopher wrote:
| Quote: | On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 12:42:09 +0200, David Brown wrote:
On the atomic scale, quantum mechanics rules - on the astronomic scale,
relativity rules. One day, someone will figure out a successful and
consistent big toe, but even then the two theories will be very good
approximations in all but the most extreme cases.
Well, I've got one, but nobody seems interested in hearing it, probably
because, of necessity, it includes God/Goddess/All That Is, right inside
the same metabox as science and religion and art and philosophy and meat
and potatoes and pizza and sex and drugs and rock & roll. :-) Otherwise,
it clearly wouldn't be a theory of _everything_. :-D
|
Those of us who work in what was once called the 'natural sciences'
(chemistry, physics, biology, and their kin) define 'science' by
reference to the 'scientific method' - a technique of developing and
testing theories about the observable universe by actually *making
observations* in a repeatible, observer-independent manner.
Many things on your list do not measure up to our standards for a
testable theory. Your 'theory of everything,' whatever it may
eventually turn out to be, cannot therefore be classified as a 'theory'
in the empirical sciences, and thus cannot be a theory that includes
science.
Your effort to be all-inclusive has pre-destined you to fail to include
empirical sciences.
Physicists OTOH do not even pretend to be interested in developing
theories about many of these things. A 'theory of everything' in
physics means an *empirically testable* theory that applies to all
*independently observable* pheonomena - a much less ambitious and much
more realizable goal than yours.
Happy philosophizing.
BTW, are you a sophomore? Most people I know outgrew the delusion that
they could ever possibly know Everything late in their second year. By
the time they started upper-division courses, they realized that they
couldn't even expect to learn Everything about their major subject in a
single lifetime.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Martin
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Dec 01, 2005 1:35 am Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
Happy Hippy wrote:
| Quote: | This peculiar shape arise
because the jets precess about a certain axis, resulting in a cone-like
radio structure.
|
That's not the same thing AT ALL, Dimwit.
-Mark Martin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Martin
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Dec 01, 2005 1:35 am Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
Happy Hippy wrote:
| Quote: | How do stars follow Keplerian orbits when the galaxy
they are in is itself turning end-over-end? That was the
question.
|
What makes you think whole intact spiral galaxies are doing pancake
flips? That's a violation of the conservation of angular momentum.
| Quote: | Looking at their pathways after numerous flips and flops of the parent
galaxy, do you still think them to be following elipses?
|
I wouldn't accuse even planet Earth of traveling an absolutely
perfect ellipse. That's just one component of its motion. It also
wiggles back & forth, since Earth & the Moon both orbit a mutual
barycenter, and that barycenter shares another barycenter with the Sun.
Earth gets perturbed endlessly in small amounts as bits of meteoric
dust zip by. It even gets perturbed by the passage of neutrinos through
it. A body's instantaneous motion is a function of the sum of all the
forces acting upon it. A body's actual path over a period of time is a
function of all the variable forces acting upon it over time.
| Quote: | Hello? Is *anybody* home?
|
Yes, yes, of course. If anyone dares to think contrary to the Mighty
Sefton, then they are to be dismissed as absent and unaccounted for.
-Mark Martin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob Monsen
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Dec 01, 2005 1:35 am Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 21:45:46 +0000, Rich Grise wrote:
| Quote: | On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 13:29:15 -0800, Bob Monsen wrote:
...
(A number) submits to be taken away from a number greater than itself,
but to take it away from a number less than itself is ridiculous. Yet
this is attempted by algebraists who talk of a number less than nothing;
of multiplying a negative number into a negative number and thus
producing a positive number; of a number being imaginary. ... This is
all jargon, at which common sense recoils; but, from its having been
once adopted, like many other figments, it finds the most strenuous
supporters among those who love to take things upon trust and hate the
colour of serious thought. - William Frend (father-in-law of Augustus De
Morgan) in 1796
Obviously this guy never had to borrow any money, or played poker where
he had to pull light from the pot. ;-)
|
Things that make no sense often become obvious once somebody points out
a simple geometric model. For negative numbers, it is the infinite
number line which stretches in both directions. For complex numbers, it
is the plane. Until the notion of 'imaginary' numbers was associated
with a geometric model of the plane, nobody took them seriously.
However, if you think in terms of Euclidian geometry, lengths are always
positive, and ratios are always 'constructable' or considered obscene...
(all the men are good looking, and all the kids are above average). There
is no measurement as such. Because of this, there is has been a constant
historical tension between geometers and alegebraists. Some people think
in pictures, some in symbols...
---
Regards,
Bob Monsen
(Regarding sqrt(-1)) : ... we can repudiate completely and which we can
abandon without regret because one does not know what this pretended sign
signifies nor what sense one ought to attribute to it.
- Cauchy in 1847 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rich Grise
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Dec 01, 2005 1:35 am Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 13:29:15 -0800, Bob Monsen wrote:
....
| Quote: | (A number) submits to be taken away from a number greater than itself,
but to take it away from a number less than itself is ridiculous. Yet
this is attempted by algebraists who talk of a number less than nothing;
of multiplying a negative number into a negative number and thus
producing a positive number; of a number being imaginary. ... This is
all jargon, at which common sense recoils; but, from its having been
once adopted, like many other figments, it finds the most strenuous
supporters among those who love to take things upon trust and hate the
colour of serious thought. - William Frend (father-in-law of Augustus De
Morgan) in 1796
|
In this day and age, negative numbers are "almost intuitive" - when I
was in about fifth or 6th grade, they were teaching us the number line.
And the teacher asks, "So, what if you have three, but take away five?"
and some kid says, "Well, then you'd be two in the hole." The teacher
said "Exactly!!" and lit up like "Wow, one of them *GOT IT*!!" ;-)
Cheers!
Rich |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rich Grise
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Dec 01, 2005 1:35 am Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 13:29:15 -0800, Bob Monsen wrote:
....
| Quote: | (A number) submits to be taken away from a number greater than itself,
but to take it away from a number less than itself is ridiculous. Yet
this is attempted by algebraists who talk of a number less than nothing;
of multiplying a negative number into a negative number and thus
producing a positive number; of a number being imaginary. ... This is
all jargon, at which common sense recoils; but, from its having been
once adopted, like many other figments, it finds the most strenuous
supporters among those who love to take things upon trust and hate the
colour of serious thought. - William Frend (father-in-law of Augustus De
Morgan) in 1796
|
Obviously this guy never had to borrow any money, or played poker where
he had to pull light from the pot. ;-)
Cheers!
Rich |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob Monsen
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Dec 01, 2005 1:35 am Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 10:23:47 -0800, tadchem wrote:
| Quote: |
Those of us who work in what was once called the 'natural sciences'
(chemistry, physics, biology, and their kin) define 'science' by
reference to the 'scientific method' - a technique of developing and
testing theories about the observable universe by actually *making
observations* in a repeatible, observer-independent manner.
Many things on your list do not measure up to our standards for a
testable theory. Your 'theory of everything,' whatever it may eventually
turn out to be, cannot therefore be classified as a 'theory' in the
empirical sciences, and thus cannot be a theory that includes science.
Your effort to be all-inclusive has pre-destined you to fail to include
empirical sciences.
|
Lots of physicists are working on string theory (yet another theory of
everything), which is considered little more than a religious cult by
physicists like Glashow. Is string theory science, according to your
definition?
---
Regards,
Bob Monsen
(A number) submits to be taken away from a number greater than itself, but
to take it away from a number less than itself is ridiculous. Yet this is
attempted by algebraists who talk of a number less than nothing; of
multiplying a negative number into a negative number and thus producing a
positive number; of a number being imaginary. ... This is all jargon, at
which common sense recoils; but, from its having been once adopted, like
many other figments, it finds the most strenuous supporters among those who
love to take things upon trust and hate the colour of serious thought.
- William Frend (father-in-law of Augustus De Morgan) in 1796 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Happy Hippy
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Dec 01, 2005 1:35 am Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
Mark Martin wrote:
| Quote: | Happy Hippy wrote:
Conic sections they may be, but the
cone is also orbitting.
[[[*Hey, John. I'm talking in a whisper so no one else can hear and
you won't be made an even bigger fool in public than you've already
made yourself... So here's the scoop: Keplerian orbits are conic
sections 'cause -get this- 'cause those shapes can be made by slicing
through a cone at various angles. But those shapes can also be made in
other ways without -get this- without cones. John, please make a note
of this... There's-no-gigantic-cone-out-in-space. There's no -get this-
no cone orbiting anything. Hope this helps. I really do. I'm praying
-get this- praying for you John.*]]]
-Mark Martin
It's impossible to explain something to you in simple |
fashion, because then you take it that way,
and equally impossible to explain in more complex
terms, because you are so distractible that you chase
the first red herring.
How do stars follow Keplerian orbits when the galaxy
they are in is itself turning end-over-end? That was the
question.
Looking at their pathways after numerous flips and flops of the parent
galaxy, do you still think them to be following elipses?
(No, I didn't accuse you of talking with a lisp.)
Hello? Is *anybody* home?
John
Galaxy Model for the Atom
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob Monsen
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Dec 01, 2005 1:35 am Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 06:47:16 -0800, Mark Martin wrote:
| Quote: |
Happy Hippy wrote:
Conic sections they may be, but the
cone is also orbitting.
[[[*Hey, John. I'm talking in a whisper so no one else can hear and
you won't be made an even bigger fool in public than you've already
made yourself... So here's the scoop: Keplerian orbits are conic
sections 'cause -get this- 'cause those shapes can be made by slicing
through a cone at various angles. But those shapes can also be made in
other ways without -get this- without cones. John, please make a note
of this... There's-no-gigantic-cone-out-in-space. There's no -get this-
no cone orbiting anything. Hope this helps. I really do. I'm praying
-get this- praying for you John.*]]]
|
He is clearly from France...
(silly movie reference)
---
Regards,
Bob Monsen
(A number) submits to be taken away from a number greater than itself, but
to take it away from a number less than itself is ridiculous. Yet this is
attempted by algebraists who talk of a number less than nothing; of
multiplying a negative number into a negative number and thus producing a
positive number; of a number being imaginary. ... This is all jargon, at
which common sense recoils; but, from its having been once adopted, like
many other figments, it finds the most strenuous supporters among those who
love to take things upon trust and hate the colour of serious thought.
- William Frend (father-in-law of Augustus De Morgan) in 1796 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in