| Author |
Message |
David Brown
Guest
|
 Posted:
Thu Dec 01, 2005 9:35 am Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
tadchem wrote:
| Quote: | Rich The Philosopher wrote:
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.
|
<snip>
While all of what you wrote is correct, I think you missed two critical
points in Rich's post - the smileys.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Happy Hippy
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:36 pm Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
Mark Martin wrote:
| Quote: | Happy Hippy wrote:
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
The same thing as what, exactly? |
(-:
John |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Martin
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:43 pm Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
Happy Hippy wrote:
| Quote: | Mark Martin wrote:
Happy Hippy wrote:
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
The same thing as what, exactly?
|
All that says is that the jets trace a cone-shaped surface. This has
nothing to do with conic-section orbits being attached to giant cones
in space.
-Mark Martin
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rich Grise, Plainclothes
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Dec 02, 2005 12:33 am Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 11:36:58 -0600, Happy Hippy wrote:
| Quote: | Mark Martin wrote:
Happy Hippy wrote:
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
The same thing as what, exactly?
(-:
John
|
I think he means that the cone-shaped jets driven by the radiation
pressure of the accretion disk isn't the same cone as the cone you
seem to have invoked for your conic section orbit deal.
Cheers!
Rich |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rich Grise, Plainclothes
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Dec 02, 2005 12:35 am Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 09:43:24 -0800, Mark Martin wrote:
| Quote: |
Happy Hippy wrote:
Mark Martin wrote:
Happy Hippy wrote:
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
The same thing as what, exactly?
All that says is that the jets trace a cone-shaped surface. This has
nothing to do with conic-section orbits being attached to giant cones
in space.
I think he was only saying that, conceptually, the cone on which any |
orbit is inscribed is, itself, revolving (or maybe only rotating)
about some other axis. I don't think he thinks there are physical
cones in outer space with little planet tracks on them. ;-P
Cheers!
Rich |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rich Grise, Plainclothes
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Dec 02, 2005 12:38 am Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 09:43:24 -0800, Mark Martin wrote:
| Quote: |
Happy Hippy wrote:
Mark Martin wrote:
Happy Hippy wrote:
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
The same thing as what, exactly?
All that says is that the jets trace a cone-shaped surface. This has
nothing to do with conic-section orbits being attached to giant cones
in space.
Ever since I can remember talking, one of my Grandpa's favorite questions |
was, "Can a wheel turn three ways at once?" And he'd start acting it out,
with this imaginary wheel in front of him, spinning, then precessing,
then, ... the game was afoot, so to speak. :-)
The world needs more of that kind of inspiration. :-)
Cheers!
RIch |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rich Grise, Plainclothes
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Dec 02, 2005 12:47 am Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 10:23:47 -0800, tadchem wrote:
| Quote: |
Rich The Philosopher wrote:
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.
|
Yeah, like I said, that's included withing the BIGTOE, Basic Independent
Grandiose Theory Of Everything.
Science is great, as far as it goes, but it isn't _everything_. :-)
| Quote: |
Many things on your list do not measure up to our standards for a
testable theory.
|
Of course not! That's why we need a new theory! Duh!
Your 'theory of everything,' whatever it may
| Quote: | 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.
|
Now, you're just being arrogant. Of course it includes science, but
merely as a subset. I see you haven't learned to see outside your box
yet.
So, don't like calling it a theory? OK, call it the grand twilliromp. ;-)
| Quote: | Your effort to be all-inclusive has pre-destined you to fail to include
empirical sciences.
|
Boy, aren't we the judgemental one.
One of the items in the grand twilliromp is that your own pre-judgement
determines the limitations of your own reality.
Good Luck!
Rich |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Happy Hippy
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Dec 02, 2005 1:06 am Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
Mark Martin wrote:
| Quote: | Happy Hippy wrote:
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.
|
Galaxies have been shown to be surrounded by a
spherical halo of stars?
John |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Martin
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Dec 02, 2005 1:13 am Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
Happy Hippy wrote:
| Quote: | Mark Martin wrote:
Happy Hippy wrote:
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.
Galaxies have been shown to be surrounded by a
spherical halo of stars?
|
So? What do you think each indivdual star/star cluster is doing? You
think it's just sitting there? Hell no. It's orbiting with the mass
center of the galaxy. If you were to run a movie of the halo very fast
you'd see each such object wizzing along on its own geodesic.
-Mark Martin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Happy Hippy
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Dec 02, 2005 1:35 am Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
Rich Grise, Plainclothes Hippie wrote:
| Quote: | On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 09:43:24 -0800, Mark Martin wrote:
Happy Hippy wrote:
Mark Martin wrote:
Happy Hippy wrote:
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
The same thing as what, exactly?
All that says is that the jets trace a cone-shaped surface. This has
nothing to do with conic-section orbits being attached to giant cones
in space.
Ever since I can remember talking, one of my Grandpa's favorite questions
was, "Can a wheel turn three ways at once?" And he'd start acting it out,
with this imaginary wheel in front of him, spinning, then precessing,
then, ... the game was afoot, so to speak. :-)
The world needs more of that kind of inspiration. :-)
Cheers!
RIch
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/%7Ewilliebo/zzzgyrovideo.MPG |
Was this what Mark was
saying was against the law?
In this brief clip, rotating the bike wheel
causes precession.
This is what I think galaxies are doing.
(Albeit very, *very*, slowly.
(-:
John |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Martin
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Dec 02, 2005 1:35 am Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
Happy Hippy wrote:
| Quote: | http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/%7Ewilliebo/zzzgyrovideo.MPG
Was this what Mark was
saying was against the law?
In this brief clip, rotating the bike wheel
causes precession.
This is what I think galaxies are doing.
(Albeit very, *very*, slowly.
|
John, you're really making a major fool of yourself here. There's a
major difference between a bike wheel and a spiral galaxy. Can you tell
me what that difference is? I'll tell you what it is.
First, the bike wheel is a RIGID system. A galaxy is anything but.
Second, the bike wheel is hanging on the end of a tense chord with its
angular momentum vector at some angle to the vertical, within an
approximately uniform gravitational potential. A galaxy is anything
but.
As Mrs. Banks said, in Mary Poppins "Rather stooopid."
-Mark Martin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PD
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Dec 02, 2005 1:35 am Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
Happy Hippy wrote:
| Quote: | Rich Grise, Plainclothes Hippie wrote:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 09:43:24 -0800, Mark Martin wrote:
Happy Hippy wrote:
Mark Martin wrote:
Happy Hippy wrote:
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
The same thing as what, exactly?
All that says is that the jets trace a cone-shaped surface. This has
nothing to do with conic-section orbits being attached to giant cones
in space.
Ever since I can remember talking, one of my Grandpa's favorite questions
was, "Can a wheel turn three ways at once?" And he'd start acting it out,
with this imaginary wheel in front of him, spinning, then precessing,
then, ... the game was afoot, so to speak. :-)
The world needs more of that kind of inspiration. :-)
Cheers!
RIch
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/%7Ewilliebo/zzzgyrovideo.MPG
Was this what Mark was
saying was against the law?
In this brief clip, rotating the bike wheel
causes precession.
This is what I think galaxies are doing.
(Albeit very, *very*, slowly.
(-:
John
|
And classical physics explains this precession with the presence of an
external torque that is not along the axis of rotation. (It is in fact
perpendicular to both the axis of rotation and the axis of precession.)
This explanation is neatly confirmed by changing the direction or
magnitude of that torque and observing the appropriate change in the
precession rate. And so if you think that galaxies precess, then you
surely have an accounting of the external torque that is not along the
axis of rotation.
What you're doing, John, is extrapolating similar *behaviors* to
similar objects, without an understanding of the agent that is causing
the behavior or the rules that govern that behavior. Thus you imagine
that because galaxies and bicycle wheels both have rotation and moments
of inertia, then whatever the bicycle wheel does the galaxy should do
also.
Returning to the cats and dogs thing: Both are mammals, both are
carnivores with sharp canine teeth and sensitive hearing, both have
binocular vision, both walk on four feet and have claws, neither sweat
and must lose extra heat through panting, and both have fur and tails
that they use for balance in running. However, it would be a mistake to
then assume that because dogs in the wild hunt in packs, then cats in
the wild do the same.
You make the same mistake in a *profound* way in comparing galaxies to
atoms. You extrapolate the similarities without understanding anything
about the underlying causes that will also reveal their deep
differences.
PD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Androcles
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Dec 02, 2005 5:35 pm Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1133468429.321261.238640@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
Happy Hippy wrote:
Rich Grise, Plainclothes Hippie wrote:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 09:43:24 -0800, Mark Martin wrote:
Happy Hippy wrote:
Mark Martin wrote:
Happy Hippy wrote:
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
The same thing as what, exactly?
All that says is that the jets trace a cone-shaped surface. This has
nothing to do with conic-section orbits being attached to giant cones
in space.
Ever since I can remember talking, one of my Grandpa's favorite
questions
was, "Can a wheel turn three ways at once?" And he'd start acting it
out,
with this imaginary wheel in front of him, spinning, then precessing,
then, ... the game was afoot, so to speak. :-)
The world needs more of that kind of inspiration. :-)
Cheers!
RIch
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/%7Ewilliebo/zzzgyrovideo.MPG
Was this what Mark was
saying was against the law?
In this brief clip, rotating the bike wheel
causes precession.
This is what I think galaxies are doing.
(Albeit very, *very*, slowly.
(-:
John
And classical physics explains this precession with the presence of an
external torque that is not along the axis of rotation. (It is in fact
perpendicular to both the axis of rotation and the axis of precession.)
This explanation is neatly confirmed by changing the direction or
magnitude of that torque and observing the appropriate change in the
precession rate. And so if you think that galaxies precess, then you
surely have an accounting of the external torque that is not along the
axis of rotation.
What you're doing, John, is extrapolating similar *behaviors* to
similar objects, without an understanding of the agent that is causing
the behavior or the rules that govern that behavior. Thus you imagine
that because galaxies and bicycle wheels both have rotation and moments
of inertia, then whatever the bicycle wheel does the galaxy should do
also.
Returning to the cats and dogs thing: Both are mammals, both are
carnivores with sharp canine teeth and sensitive hearing, both have
binocular vision, both walk on four feet and have claws, neither sweat
and must lose extra heat through panting, and both have fur and tails
that they use for balance in running. However, it would be a mistake to
then assume that because dogs in the wild hunt in packs, then cats in
the wild do the same.
You make the same mistake in a *profound* way in comparing galaxies to
atoms. You extrapolate the similarities without understanding anything
about the underlying causes that will also reveal their deep
differences.
PD
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message |
news:1133428326.622627.173990@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Let a clock emit a frequency of 1 Hz be moving relative to
an observer with velocity 0.866c
Comment:
Such a clock is supposed to tick at a lower rate as a result of it s
velocity.
The velocity chosen is such that gamma = 2.
Therefore the clock ticks 1 second for every 2 seconds of the "stationary"
reference clock.
Einstein's FUMBLE:
t-vx/c^2
t' = _______________
sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
ref (Electrodynamics, section 3)
Calculation:
= t * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
= 1 * 0.5
= 0.5 seconds
= 1 tick per 2 seconds
Comment:
One second measured by the "moving" clock has duration two seconds
measured by the "stationary" clock. The "moving" clock is (supposedly)
running slow.
You lie, moortel lies.
0.5 seconds (measured by the "moving" clock)
is 0.5 Hz (measured by the "stationary" clock)
You are as stupid as they come, a totally ignorant phuckwit.
I will not go away, I will hound you for the imbecile you are.
Androcles. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don Bowey
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Dec 02, 2005 5:35 pm Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
On 12/2/05 4:53 AM, in article
xtXjf.122163$Es4.69820@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk, "Androcles"
<Androcles@MyPlace.yep> wrote:
| Quote: |
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1133468429.321261.238640@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Happy Hippy wrote:
Rich Grise, Plainclothes Hippie wrote:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 09:43:24 -0800, Mark Martin wrote:
Happy Hippy wrote:
Mark Martin wrote:
Happy Hippy wrote:
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
The same thing as what, exactly?
All that says is that the jets trace a cone-shaped surface. This has
nothing to do with conic-section orbits being attached to giant cones
in space.
Ever since I can remember talking, one of my Grandpa's favorite
questions
was, "Can a wheel turn three ways at once?" And he'd start acting it
out,
with this imaginary wheel in front of him, spinning, then precessing,
then, ... the game was afoot, so to speak. :-)
The world needs more of that kind of inspiration. :-)
Cheers!
RIch
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/%7Ewilliebo/zzzgyrovideo.MPG
Was this what Mark was
saying was against the law?
In this brief clip, rotating the bike wheel
causes precession.
This is what I think galaxies are doing.
(Albeit very, *very*, slowly.
(-:
John
And classical physics explains this precession with the presence of an
external torque that is not along the axis of rotation. (It is in fact
perpendicular to both the axis of rotation and the axis of precession.)
This explanation is neatly confirmed by changing the direction or
magnitude of that torque and observing the appropriate change in the
precession rate. And so if you think that galaxies precess, then you
surely have an accounting of the external torque that is not along the
axis of rotation.
What you're doing, John, is extrapolating similar *behaviors* to
similar objects, without an understanding of the agent that is causing
the behavior or the rules that govern that behavior. Thus you imagine
that because galaxies and bicycle wheels both have rotation and moments
of inertia, then whatever the bicycle wheel does the galaxy should do
also.
Returning to the cats and dogs thing: Both are mammals, both are
carnivores with sharp canine teeth and sensitive hearing, both have
binocular vision, both walk on four feet and have claws, neither sweat
and must lose extra heat through panting, and both have fur and tails
that they use for balance in running. However, it would be a mistake to
then assume that because dogs in the wild hunt in packs, then cats in
the wild do the same.
You make the same mistake in a *profound* way in comparing galaxies to
atoms. You extrapolate the similarities without understanding anything
about the underlying causes that will also reveal their deep
differences.
PD
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1133428326.622627.173990@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Androcles wrote:
But I never once claimed 0.5 s = 0.5 Hz, Phuckwit Duck. There was no
error
to acknowledge, you've fucked up.
and refused to remove the erroneous statement
from further discussion. Shake your stinkbait in front of someone who
notices you.
You are a cunt, Phuckwit Duck. Cite where I said what you LIED I said.
Sure. It's recorded for posterity:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/TimeIsFreq2.html
which of course followed an earlier post, echoing what you once said on
your ill-fated website, also recorded for posterity:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/TimeIsFreq.html
I don't lie, Androcles. You do. Now go away.
PD
Let a clock emit a frequency of 1 Hz be moving relative to
an observer with velocity 0.866c
Comment:
Such a clock is supposed to tick at a lower rate as a result of it s
velocity.
The velocity chosen is such that gamma = 2.
Therefore the clock ticks 1 second for every 2 seconds of the "stationary"
reference clock.
Einstein's FUMBLE:
t-vx/c^2
t' = _______________
sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
ref (Electrodynamics, section 3)
Calculation:
= t * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
= 1 * 0.5
= 0.5 seconds
= 1 tick per 2 seconds
Comment:
One second measured by the "moving" clock has duration two seconds
measured by the "stationary" clock. The "moving" clock is (supposedly)
running slow.
You lie, moortel lies.
0.5 seconds (measured by the "moving" clock)
is 0.5 Hz (measured by the "stationary" clock)
You are as stupid as they come, a totally ignorant phuckwit.
I will not go away, I will hound you for the imbecile you are.
Androcles.
|
As trolls go, you have a fun topic, but a poor presentation, You should
work on it and come back another day. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sam Wormley
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Dec 02, 2005 5:35 pm Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
Hippity Hoppity wrote:
| Quote: |
But stars within galaxies do not and cannot follow Keplerian
orbitals. Why? Because spiral galaxies have *arms*.
Their arms remain discrete. They are separated from the
other arms by bands of dust.
|
I think it is the Oct. 2005 issue of Scientific American
that provides some layman level education about galactic
spiral arms.... You, John, might benefit from reading about
the phenomenon of spiral arms and stellar orbits. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in