| Author |
Message |
Charlie Edmondson
Guest
|
 Posted:
Fri Dec 02, 2005 5:35 pm Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
Happy Hippy wrote:
| Quote: | Mark Martin wrote:
Happy Hippy wrote:
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
A galaxy is not rigid.
I'll give you that.
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.
If the stars followed Keplerian orbits the galaxies
could not possibly have arms. The inner stars would quickly lap
stars exterior to them. It was precisely *because* of this that
Dumb...I mean Dark...Matter was proposed; to pull all the
outer stars around faster!! (Who *was* the brainiac that
belched out that one?)
No, galaxies aren't rigid. But they aren't fluid, either.
They are definitely structured in a somewhat permanent way.
And for whatever reason- DM or the real reason- the stars
within DO NOT....and CAN NOT... follow Keplerian orbits.
Who was the brainiac that said that? Sam? Was that you?
John
)-:
Hi John, |
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
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mark Martin
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Dec 02, 2005 5:35 pm Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
Happy Hippy wrote:
| Quote: | A galaxy is not rigid.
I'll give you that.
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.
|
If, by "Keplerian", you mean a nice, clean, uncomplicated ellipse,
then I'll have to say "What ever gave you the idea that things in the
Universe are even asserted to follow such ideal paths?" I already told
you a few posts back that I already know that real things don't travel
in clean ellipses. An ideal elliptical orbit is followed only by
*pairs* of gravitating objects. In this big Cosmos, there are no pairs.
There are, in fact, g'zillions of things exerting forces upon each
other, and gravity is only one of those forces. Kepler discovered
elliptical orbits only by the grace of orbits which are sufficiently
close to ideal ellipses as to be amenable to analysis by means
available to him at that time. If they had been severely complicated,
for example by our being in a binary star system, then he probably
would not have had a chance.
| Quote: | If the stars followed Keplerian orbits the galaxies
could not possibly have arms. The inner stars would quickly lap
stars exterior to them. It was precisely *because* of this that
Dumb...I mean Dark...Matter was proposed; to pull all the
outer stars around faster!! (Who *was* the brainiac that
belched out that one?)
|
Something you don't seem to grasp is that the arms are not
equivalent to the individual stars within them. If I rig up a weak
light source to shine through a pinhole, producing an Airy pattern (an
interference pattern of concentric rings) on a screen, the image of the
rings will be quite stable on the large scale. But if I look closely
enough at the image I'll find that on the small scale it sparkles. Each
sparkle is a single photon event on the screen. The large Airy pattern
is not, from moment to moment, the same exact photons. The photons come
& go. The spiral arms of a galaxy are not necessarily made up of the
same exact individual stars from one eon to the next. The spiral
pattern is not a function only of Keplerian orbits. There's something
more complicated going on in spiral galaxies than *just" masses
gravitating towards each other.
And if you don't know by now, at this late time in your carreer as a
maverick physicist, why the anomalous periods of galactic stars
suggests Dark Matter (which should then be investigated as a plausible
hypothesis, *alongside* the hypothesis that gravity follows a law not
yet understood by us)), then what the hell are you doing bashing it?
You don't even know what it is that you're debunking.
| Quote: | No, galaxies aren't rigid. But they aren't fluid, either.
They are definitely structured in a somewhat permanent way.
And for whatever reason- DM or the real reason- the stars
within DO NOT....and CAN NOT... follow Keplerian orbits.
Who was the brainiac that said that? Sam? Was that you?
|
There's an old saying, that "Things should be described as simply as
possible, but no simpler." Your stuff is a perfect example of simpler.
-Mark Martin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Happy Hippy
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Dec 02, 2005 5:35 pm Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
Mark Martin wrote:
| Quote: | Happy Hippy wrote:
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
A galaxy is not rigid. |
I'll give you that.
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.
If the stars followed Keplerian orbits the galaxies
could not possibly have arms. The inner stars would quickly lap
stars exterior to them. It was precisely *because* of this that
Dumb...I mean Dark...Matter was proposed; to pull all the
outer stars around faster!! (Who *was* the brainiac that
belched out that one?)
No, galaxies aren't rigid. But they aren't fluid, either.
They are definitely structured in a somewhat permanent way.
And for whatever reason- DM or the real reason- the stars
within DO NOT....and CAN NOT... follow Keplerian orbits.
Who was the brainiac that said that? Sam? Was that you?
John
)-:
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rich Grise, Plainclothes
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Dec 03, 2005 12:39 am Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 08:57:30 -0800, Charlie Edmondson wrote:
| Quote: | Happy Hippy wrote:
....
No, galaxies aren't rigid. But they aren't fluid, either.
They are definitely structured in a somewhat permanent way.
And for whatever reason- DM or the real reason- the stars
within DO NOT....and CAN NOT... follow Keplerian orbits.
Who was the brainiac that said that? Sam? Was that you?
John
)-:
Hi John,
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.
|
I once saw a time-lapse artists' conception of how a spiral galaxy is
structured, and it seems that the leading edges of the arms consisted of
new, young stars and the trailing edges were old, burned-out stars, and
the dark spaces between the arms were full of supernova dust ("star
stuff") waiting to be conglomerated by the advancing gravity wave of the
approaching arm, and become the new stars in the leading edge. It was
kinda cool, actually.
Cheers!
Rich |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Happy Hippy
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Dec 03, 2005 1:06 am Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
Mark Martin wrote:
| Quote: | Happy Hippy wrote:
A galaxy is not rigid.
I'll give you that.
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.
If, by "Keplerian", you mean a nice, clean, uncomplicated ellipse,
then I'll have to say "What ever gave you the idea that things in the
Universe are even asserted to follow such ideal paths?" I already told
you a few posts back that I already know that real things don't travel
in clean ellipses. An ideal elliptical orbit is followed only by
*pairs* of gravitating objects. In this big Cosmos, there are no pairs.
There are, in fact, g'zillions of things exerting forces upon each
other, and gravity is only one of those forces. Kepler discovered
elliptical orbits only by the grace of orbits which are sufficiently
close to ideal ellipses as to be amenable to analysis by means
available to him at that time. If they had been severely complicated,
for example by our being in a binary star system, then he probably
would not have had a chance.
If the stars followed Keplerian orbits the galaxies
could not possibly have arms. The inner stars would quickly lap
stars exterior to them. It was precisely *because* of this that
Dumb...I mean Dark...Matter was proposed; to pull all the
outer stars around faster!! (Who *was* the brainiac that
belched out that one?)
Something you don't seem to grasp is that the arms are not
equivalent to the individual stars within them. If I rig up a weak
light source to shine through a pinhole, producing an Airy pattern (an
interference pattern of concentric rings) on a screen, the image of the
rings will be quite stable on the large scale. But if I look closely
enough at the image I'll find that on the small scale it sparkles. Each
sparkle is a single photon event on the screen. The large Airy pattern
is not, from moment to moment, the same exact photons. The photons come
& go. The spiral arms of a galaxy are not necessarily made up of the
same exact individual stars from one eon to the next. The spiral
pattern is not a function only of Keplerian orbits. There's something
more complicated going on in spiral galaxies than *just" masses
gravitating towards each other.
And if you don't know by now, at this late time in your carreer as a
maverick physicist, why the anomalous periods of galactic stars
suggests Dark Matter (which should then be investigated as a plausible
hypothesis, *alongside* the hypothesis that gravity follows a law not
yet understood by us)), then what the hell are you doing bashing it?
You don't even know what it is that you're debunking.
No, galaxies aren't rigid. But they aren't fluid, either.
They are definitely structured in a somewhat permanent way.
And for whatever reason- DM or the real reason- the stars
within DO NOT....and CAN NOT... follow Keplerian orbits.
Who was the brainiac that said that? Sam? Was that you?
There's an old saying, that "Things should be described as simply as
possible, but no simpler." Your stuff is a perfect example of simpler.
-Mark Martin
DM? |
DE?
Postulating whole new classes of things to prop
up 'suck gravity'?
In your view, is that 'as simply as
possible'?
John |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Martin
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Dec 03, 2005 1:31 am Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
Happy Hippy wrote:
| Quote: | DM?
DE?
Postulating whole new classes of things to prop
up 'suck gravity'?
In your view, is that 'as simply as
possible'?
|
Did I ever say the only hypothesis is that we have an immutable
understanding of gravity? Did I say that? NO. I didn't. Go back and
read my post. I said plainly that dark matter *and* modified gravity
should both be explored. You're the one being chauvinistic here, John.
Between the two of us, you are the one who cannot stomach even the
notion that dark matter is a perfectly reasonable suspect.
This is how new things are discovered. An anomaly is found; all
interpretations are pursued and the winner is the one with all the
observational vindication. This is how neutrinos were discovered. There
was either a hitherto unknown particle, or there was a violation of
conserved energy & momentum. Both hypotheses were considered. A
rigorous theory of a new particle, constrained by known principles, was
inferred. It made unambiguous predictions. In time it became possible
to test those predictions by experiment. The neutrino became a fact,
and energy remained a conserved quantity.
It's this way now. There are data to constrain new theories which
are in the works. Physicists can't afford to throw out dark matter on
the fallacious argument that it's "time for a new theory of gravity".
This isn't a sleepover party where everyone gets a turn. A theory is
only categorically excluded if hard data are clearly inconsistent with
it. There's nothing (yet) in the data which preclude Einsteinian
gravity.
-Mark Martin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Sefton
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Dec 03, 2005 1:35 am Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
Rich Grise, Plainclothes Hippie wrote:
| Quote: | On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 08:57:30 -0800, Charlie Edmondson wrote:
Happy Hippy wrote:
...
No, galaxies aren't rigid. But they aren't fluid, either.
They are definitely structured in a somewhat permanent way.
And for whatever reason- DM or the real reason- the stars
within DO NOT....and CAN NOT... follow Keplerian orbits.
Who was the brainiac that said that? Sam? Was that you?
John
)-:
Hi John,
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.
I once saw a time-lapse artists' conception of how a spiral galaxy is
structured, and it seems that the leading edges of the arms consisted of
new, young stars and the trailing edges were old, burned-out stars, and
the dark spaces between the arms were full of supernova dust ("star
stuff") waiting to be conglomerated by the advancing gravity wave of the
approaching arm, and become the new stars in the leading edge. It was
kinda cool, actually.
Cheers!
Rich
|
Artist's conception.
IMHO, the burned out remnants are just that- burned out. Dust.
The makings of new stars are being shot out from
the poles of the """Black Hole""" as highly-charged plasma.
Neutron stars and dust must pass through the extreme conditions
at the galaxy's center before once again having the charge-separation
necessary for star material.
Yes, the edge of the arm could swirl this plasma and
conglomerate it, but re-charge it? If this were true,
only the leading edge would have new stars. Has this been observed?
John |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dastardly Fiend
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Dec 03, 2005 9:35 am Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
"Don Bowey" <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:BFB5B0F6.1BD5D%dbowey@comcast.net...
| Quote: | On 12/2/05 4:53 AM, in article
xtXjf.122163$Es4.69820@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk, "Androcles"
Androcles@MyPlace.yep> wrote:
"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.
|
As trolls go, you are the typical tusselad.
Listen carefully to this presentation:
http://www.trollshop.net/trolls/tusselader/
I'm discussing physics, not presentations.
You should go away and never come back.
Androcles. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Happy Hippy
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Dec 03, 2005 5:35 pm Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
Charlie Edmondson wrote:
| Quote: | Happy Hippy wrote:
Mark Martin wrote:
Happy Hippy wrote:
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
A galaxy is not rigid.
I'll give you that.
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.
If the stars followed Keplerian orbits the galaxies
could not possibly have arms. The inner stars would quickly lap
stars exterior to them. It was precisely *because* of this that
Dumb...I mean Dark...Matter was proposed; to pull all the
outer stars around faster!! (Who *was* the brainiac that
belched out that one?)
No, galaxies aren't rigid. But they aren't fluid, either.
They are definitely structured in a somewhat permanent way.
And for whatever reason- DM or the real reason- the stars
within DO NOT....and CAN NOT... follow Keplerian orbits.
Who was the brainiac that said that? Sam? Was that you?
John
)-:
Hi John,
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.
Perhaps you have some reference to the statements
that stars go back and forth between arms?
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. Gimme a link to support your
statement about arms going back and forth.
John
Galaxy Model for the Atom
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Fergerson
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Dec 05, 2005 9:35 am Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
Happy Hippy wrote:
| Quote: | Charlie Edmondson wrote:
Happy Hippy wrote:
Mark Martin wrote:
Happy Hippy wrote:
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
A galaxy is not rigid.
I'll give you that.
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.
If the stars followed Keplerian orbits the galaxies
could not possibly have arms. The inner stars would quickly lap
stars exterior to them. It was precisely *because* of this that
Dumb...I mean Dark...Matter was proposed; to pull all the
outer stars around faster!! (Who *was* the brainiac that
belched out that one?)
No, galaxies aren't rigid. But they aren't fluid, either.
They are definitely structured in a somewhat permanent way.
And for whatever reason- DM or the real reason- the stars
within DO NOT....and CAN NOT... follow Keplerian orbits.
Who was the brainiac that said that? Sam? Was that you?
John
)-:
Hi John,
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.
|
Look up the term "attractor".
| Quote: | Perhaps you have some reference to the statements
that stars go back and forth between arms?
|
So, you think all stars within a given arm have the same angular
velocities? That'll come as a surprise to astronomers.
| 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?
| Quote: | Gimme a link to support your
statement about arms going back and forth.
|
Gimme a link to support your statements.
Mark L. Fergerson |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Happy Hippy
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Dec 05, 2005 5:35 pm Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
Mark Fergerson wrote:
| Quote: | Happy Hippy wrote:
Charlie Edmondson wrote:
Happy Hippy wrote:
Mark Martin wrote:
Happy Hippy wrote:
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
A galaxy is not rigid.
I'll give you that.
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.
If the stars followed Keplerian orbits the galaxies
could not possibly have arms. The inner stars would quickly lap
stars exterior to them. It was precisely *because* of this that
Dumb...I mean Dark...Matter was proposed; to pull all the
outer stars around faster!! (Who *was* the brainiac that
belched out that one?)
No, galaxies aren't rigid. But they aren't fluid, either.
They are definitely structured in a somewhat permanent way.
And for whatever reason- DM or the real reason- the stars
within DO NOT....and CAN NOT... follow Keplerian orbits.
Who was the brainiac that said that? Sam? Was that you?
John
)-:
Hi John,
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.
Look up the term "attractor".
Perhaps you have some reference to the statements
that stars go back and forth between arms?
So, you think all stars within a given arm have the same angular
velocities? That'll come as a surprise to astronomers.
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?
Gimme a link to support your
statement about arms going back and forth.
Gimme a link to support your statements.
Mark L. Fergerson
Galaxies have arms. Observation. |
Arms represent order.
Your theory dictates chaos.
Chaos is not equal to order.
John |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PD
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Dec 05, 2005 5:35 pm Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
Happy Hippy wrote:
| Quote: | Sorry Charlie, I've never read any kind of
observations or proof to that effect. Arms are
order. Chaos does not do order.
Perhaps you have some reference to the statements
that stars go back and forth between arms?
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. Gimme a link to support your
statement about arms going back and forth.
John
Galaxy Model for the Atom
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/
|
You were given one, John, the recent (2 months ago) article in
Scientific American. It is likely still in the public library. At the
end of that article you will see a handful of additional references for
further reading. This should be enough to convince you that you are on
the wrong track. If however, you do not want to learn that you are on
the wrong track, then you will of course to decline to read.
PD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Martin
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Dec 05, 2005 5:35 pm Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
Happy Hippy wrote:
| Quote: | 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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sam Wormley
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Dec 05, 2005 5:35 pm Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
Hippity Hoppity wrote:
| Quote: |
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Happy Hippy
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Dec 06, 2005 1:36 am Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
Mark Martin wrote:
| Quote: | 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.
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.
John |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in