| Author |
Message |
Happy Hippy
Guest
|
 Posted:
Tue Dec 06, 2005 1:36 am Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
| Quote: | Hippity Hoppity wrote:
Galaxies have arms. Observation.
Arms represent order.
Your theory dictates chaos.
Chaos is not equal to order.
John
Arms are nothing more that density waves illuniated by new star
formation.
What is a density wave, Sam? |
John
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
PD
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Dec 06, 2005 1:36 am Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
Happy Hippy wrote:
| Quote: | Mark Martin wrote:
Happy Hippy wrote:
Arms are
order. Chaos does not do order.
"Chaos Theory" has nothing to do with *dis*order. Chaos theory is,
in fact, about complex configurations generated by highly deterministic
dynamics. It's the epitomy of orderliness. When Charley says the arms
may be chaotic, he's saying that there's a good mechanical reason that
they are there. But it doesn't necessarily mean that the stars in the
arms are all swinging about with equal angular rates.
-Mark Martin
You guys; when it suits you Scientific
American is a wonderful magazine.
|
Nah, it's generally pretty wonderful.
| Quote: | When it suits you the Uncertainty Principle
is 'highly deterministic', 'the epitomy of orderliness'.
|
Randomness does not mean completely unpredictable. It also doesn't mean
completely predictable.
| Quote: |
Here, from SA November:
'In Quantum theories,objects do not have
definite positions and velocities......
everything is in a state of constant flux, even 'empty'
space........In contrast..GR is an inherently
classical...theory.'
Pick one or the other, Mark, they are
mutually exclusive.
|
No. Do not confuse models with reality. Models have a domain of
applicability. For all we know, the *reality* of gravity includes a
lack of definite position and velocity, randomness of behavior,
interference phenomena, and a non-empty vacuum --- all the hallmarks of
quantum mechanical behavior.
We have a quantum mechanical model that correctly accounts for all
behavior of interactions on a scale comparable to Planck's constant,
except for the gravitational interaction.
We have a GR model that correctly accounts for all behavior of the
gravitational interaction except on a scale comparable to Planck's
constant.
We simply do not have a quantum mechanical model that includes gravity,
or a gravitational model that works at quantum mechanical scales. This
does not mean that only one of them (GR or QM) can be right.
Finally, note that for electromagnetic interactions, where we *do* have
a solid model, this "both right" reconciliation has been known for
quite a long time. It's been shown that the random, non-empty-vacuum
properties of quantum mechanics (QED) yield exactly the classical,
deterministic predictions of Maxwellian classical fields at scales
large compared to Planck's constant.
| Quote: | IMHO QM is doggy poop.
|
Frankly, your opinion doesn't matter. What matters is whether a model
has *predictive* power that matches experiment.
The fact that static galaxy arms do not match *experimental
observation* is what should convince you that your model is not to be
trusted.
PD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Martin
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Dec 06, 2005 1:36 am Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
Happy Hippy wrote:
| Quote: | You guys; when it suits you Scientific
American is a wonderful magazine.
When it suits you the Uncertainty Principle
is 'highly deterministic', 'the epitomy of orderliness'.
Here, from SA November:
'In Quantum theories,objects do not have
definite positions and velocities......
everything is in a state of constant flux, even 'empty'
space........In contrast..GR is an inherently
classical...theory.'
Pick one or the other, Mark, they are
mutually exclusive.
IMHO QM is doggy poop.
|
I said nothing about the uncertainty principle. I was talking about
CHAOS THEORY. Don't you know the diff?
And *I* sure as shit never sang the praises of Scientific American.
-Mark Martin
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Fergerson
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Dec 06, 2005 9:35 am Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
Happy Hippy wrote:
| Quote: | Mark Fergerson wrote:
Happy Hippy wrote:
Charlie Edmondson wrote:
|
<snippage for clarification>
| Quote: | Sorry, but no banana. The 'arms' of a galaxy are not any type of
permanent relationship. There is nothing 'holding' them together
except for a tendency to gravitationally clump when a large number
of separate large objects are spinning around a common center of
mass. Star go into and out of the 'arms' constantly. It is more a
'chaos' effect than an actual structure.
Charlie
Sorry Charlie, I've never read any kind of
observations or proof to that effect. Arms are
order. Chaos does not do order.
|
You have evidently read very little.
| Quote: | Look up the term "attractor".
Perhaps you have some reference to the statements
that stars go back and forth between arms?
|
Perhaps you have some reference that they don't?
| Quote: | So, you think all stars within a given arm have the same angular
velocities? That'll come as a surprise to astronomers.
|
Evidently you are unaware of observations (not opinions) that
demonstrate a spectrum of velocities _proving_ that stars wander in
and out of galactic arms.
| Quote: | Chaotic could maybe do a few galaxies into arms
at some times, but not *all* galaxies all the time.
Look at picture of galaxies in collision. The arms
do not break apart.
Really?
|
Especially, given that what we have are basically snapshots of
galaxies (including their component stars' Doppler velocities), not
movies of them, how do you justify this claim?
| Quote: | Gimme a link to support your
statement about arms going back and forth.
|
Gimme a link to refute it.
| Quote: | Gimme a link to support your statements.
Galaxies have arms. Observation.
|
Pay close attention: over what time span?
| Quote: | Arms represent order.
|
Again, over what time span? Do you actually believe that the
number, spacing, population density etc. of galactic arms does not
change over time?
| Quote: | Your theory dictates chaos.
|
Nope. "Includes" chaos.
| Quote: | Chaos is not equal to order.
|
I say again, look up "attractor". Chaos theory is quite
consistent with short term (in terms of the lifetime of a galaxy) order.
Mark L. Fergerson |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sam Wormley
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Martin
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Dec 07, 2005 1:35 am Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
Mark Fergerson wrote:
| Quote: | Your theory dictates chaos.
Nope. "Includes" chaos.
Chaos is not equal to order.
I say again, look up "attractor". Chaos theory is quite
consistent with short term (in terms of the lifetime of a galaxy) order.
|
It's become evident the last couple of days that John confuses chaos
theory with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. He reads the word
"chaos" and projects "random" onto it.
-Mark Martin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Happy Hippy
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Dec 07, 2005 1:35 am Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
Mark Fergerson wrote:
| Quote: | Happy Hippy wrote:
Galaxies have arms. Observation.
Pay close attention: over what time span?
Arms represent order.
Again, over what time span? Do you actually believe that the number,
spacing, population density etc. of galactic arms does not change over
time?
Well, let's just wait a few billion years |
and watch one galaxy.
John |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Happy Hippy
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Dec 07, 2005 8:59 am Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
reason for the arms is in no way proven.
Treating them like a fluid is just
easier to deal with.
You don't seem to grasp, Sam, that most of
these things are just at the 'best guess'
stage.
I'll bet you believe 100% in Black Holes, Dark
Matter, and Dark Energy, don't you?
John |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sam Wormley
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Dec 07, 2005 9:35 am Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
Happy Hippy wrote:
| Quote: | I'll bet you believe 100% in Black Holes, Dark
Matter, and Dark Energy, don't you?
John
|
Why do you say that, John? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Martin
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Dec 07, 2005 5:35 pm Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
Happy Hippy wrote:
| Quote: | See: http://astron.berkeley.edu/~jrg/ay202/node150.html
If you read this link it says the
reason for the arms is in no way proven.
Treating them like a fluid is just
easier to deal with.
You don't seem to grasp, Sam, that most of
these things are just at the 'best guess'
stage.
I'll bet you believe 100% in Black Holes, Dark
Matter, and Dark Energy, don't you?
|
Yes, it's not proven. (Nothing ever is.) But understanding the
presence of arms is also in no way just a best guess. Astrophysicists
have been doing something better than guessing for deceades: they've
been doing numerical modeling on computers, from which some semblence
of isnight can be gained. You, on the other hand, *are* just guessing,
about everything, all the time.
-Mark Martin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Happy Hippy
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Dec 07, 2005 5:35 pm Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
Mark Fergerson wrote:
| Quote: | Mark Martin wrote:
Mark Fergerson wrote:
Your theory dictates chaos.
Nope. "Includes" chaos.
BTW it isn't "my" theory.
Chaos is not equal to order.
I say again, look up "attractor". Chaos theory is quite
consistent with short term (in terms of the lifetime of a galaxy) order.
It's become evident the last couple of days that John confuses chaos
theory with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. He reads the word
"chaos" and projects "random" onto it.
Ah, that explains it. I also suppose he can't understand how
quantum-scale randomness can become macro-scale determinism.
Mark L. Fergerson
Tell me, Mark. |
First let me tell you how I was on a runway in
a plane at 35 below with 3000 feet of
freezing rain above us which we didn't know
about, a plane with no de-icers, and a pilot
who was just going to 'go for it', and during our
run-ups an oil seal broke so we had to abort.
What kind of q-randomness saved my ass THAT day?
I think you have to have your own
experiences of this type to open your
eyes. I have had numerous such. It's like
somebody is always backing my play. (-:
John |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Fergerson
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Dec 07, 2005 5:35 pm Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
Mark Martin wrote:
| Quote: | Mark Fergerson wrote:
Your theory dictates chaos.
Nope. "Includes" chaos.
|
BTW it isn't "my" theory.
| Quote: | Chaos is not equal to order.
I say again, look up "attractor". Chaos theory is quite
consistent with short term (in terms of the lifetime of a galaxy) order.
It's become evident the last couple of days that John confuses chaos
theory with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. He reads the word
"chaos" and projects "random" onto it.
|
Ah, that explains it. I also suppose he can't understand how
quantum-scale randomness can become macro-scale determinism.
Mark L. Fergerson |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PD
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Dec 07, 2005 5:35 pm Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
Mark Fergerson wrote:
| Quote: | Mark Martin wrote:
Mark Fergerson wrote:
Your theory dictates chaos.
Nope. "Includes" chaos.
BTW it isn't "my" theory.
Chaos is not equal to order.
I say again, look up "attractor". Chaos theory is quite
consistent with short term (in terms of the lifetime of a galaxy) order.
It's become evident the last couple of days that John confuses chaos
theory with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. He reads the word
"chaos" and projects "random" onto it.
Ah, that explains it. I also suppose he can't understand how
quantum-scale randomness can become macro-scale determinism.
|
This "continuum limit" exercise is frequently repeated in a quantum
mechanics class, just as a benchmark that "quantum weirdness" reduces
to classical expectations at scales that are large compared to h-bar.
I don't know of a way I can explain that convincingly in a paragraph of
words. I think it's just better to calculate it, graph it, etc.
PD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Fergerson
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Dec 08, 2005 9:35 am Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
Happy Hippy wrote:
| Quote: | Mark Fergerson wrote:
Mark Martin wrote:
Mark Fergerson wrote:
Your theory dictates chaos.
Nope. "Includes" chaos.
BTW it isn't "my" theory.
Chaos is not equal to order.
I say again, look up "attractor". Chaos theory is quite
consistent with short term (in terms of the lifetime of a galaxy)
order.
It's become evident the last couple of days that John confuses chaos
theory with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. He reads the word
"chaos" and projects "random" onto it.
Ah, that explains it. I also suppose he can't understand how
quantum-scale randomness can become macro-scale determinism.
Tell me, Mark.
First let me tell you how I was on a runway in
a plane at 35 below with 3000 feet of
freezing rain above us which we didn't know
about, a plane with no de-icers, and a pilot
who was just going to 'go for it', and during our
run-ups an oil seal broke so we had to abort.
What kind of q-randomness saved my ass THAT day?
|
Sounds more like "go for it"-boy also likes to neglect his
maintenance. Now I suppose you want to know why the seal failed just
then? Familiar with the term Mean Time Between Failure, and why it's
called that?
| Quote: | I think you have to have your own
experiences of this type to open your
eyes. I have had numerous such. It's like
somebody is always backing my play. (-:
|
You have an exaggerated sense of your own importance.
You also appear, as Mark Martin said, to assume Chaos Theory
means total disorder- the diametric opposite of Determinism, but it
isn't. Chaos Theory is about the predictable patterns discernable in
certain types of macroscopic (originally not quantum-level)
randomness. When first announced it was a terrible shock both to
strict Determinists and Quantum Theorists alike yet it has been
shown to have wide application in both ways of looking at the real
world, whether they (or you) like it or not:
http://www.imho.com/grae/chaos/chaos.html
Incidentally, notice that Chaos Theory is intimately dependent on
fractals. You don't have a conceptual problem with fractals, do you?
I hope not because you're surrounded by examples of them.
This page explains the link between Chaos Theory and fractals a
little better:
http://www.mathjmendl.org/chaos/
It goes back to Poicare's discovery that the Solar System's
behavior is not stable Newtonian-deterministic-wise. I have to ask
you how you can possibly believe that an entire galaxy can be stable
in any particular observed state when our Solar System isn't?
Of course, if your sense of self-importance weren't so overblown
you could have Googled these and more pages to learn from. But you
apparently don't believe you have anything left to learn. That's
kinda sad; you must live in a very boring Universe.
Also kinda sad is that you failed to respond to my earlier
challenges asking you for cites to back up your beliefs re: galactic
arms; maybe you're waiting for "somebody" to do it for you?
BTW, there's a serious problem with trying to build a worldview
solely on one's own experiences; you can't live long enough to
experience everything (not to mention all the stuff you missed
before being born), nor can you replicate many of the events you
survive to see if they might have gone differently. For that matter
you can't replicate an experienced event so that someone else can
have the same experience, period. I've had _lots_ of experiences I
refuse to cite as evidence for anything no matter what I may think
they mean; that's one major difference between science and whatever
the hell it is you're doing.
Wanna talk about LSD trips? FTM, wanna talk about
perfectly-straight "paranormal" experiences? I've had plenty of
both, but they don't mean squat objectively because they're
impossible to replicate for other people.
Mark L. Fergerson |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Happy Hippy
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Dec 08, 2005 5:35 pm Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
Mark Fergerson wrote:
| Quote: | Incidentally, notice that Chaos Theory is intimately dependent on
fractals. You don't have a conceptual problem with fractals, do you? I
hope not because you're surrounded by examples of them.
This page explains the link between Chaos Theory and fractals a little
better:
http://www.mathjmendl.org/chaos/
It goes back to Poicare's discovery that the Solar System's behavior
is not stable Newtonian-deterministic-wise. I have to ask you how you
can possibly believe that an entire galaxy can be stable in any
particular observed state when our Solar System isn't?
|
Very easily.
As you look at finer and finer details of anything,
there is more and more variation.
We both have a head and (I hope) the required
number of appendages.
Fine.
But your DNA is unique to you.
Your fingerprints are unique to you.
When we look at your microbial population, it
is vastly different than mine and wildly changing all
the time, just like mine.
All our cells have completely changed over every 12
years.
The gut cells change over every 2 days.
Our sun could frigging explode and it would
make *no* difference to the galaxy. Hell, stars
are going nova all the time- its part of their
cycle.
So basically you are saying:
if your skin cells just die, then
how can the rest of you be stable?
Well, it isn't.
But it is stable much longer than the skin cell.
Likewise galaxies are not invulnerable; they
can get into a situation like an atom-smasher or
a fission bomb or a Black Hole which will seriously
alter them.
But *they* are the stable structure. Our Sun and planets
are temporary waveforms that are emitting energy
in the form of photons and will eventually run out of
that energy.
Yeah- I don't hesitate to say that galaxies
are very stable- as stable as atoms.
| Quote: | Wanna talk about LSD trips? FTM, wanna talk about perfectly-straight
"paranormal" experiences? I've had plenty of both, but they don't mean
squat objectively because they're impossible to replicate for other people.
Mark L. Fergerson
Did you have any eye-opening experiences on LSD? |
John
Galaxy Model 4 the Atom
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in