OT: Are protons really quantum black holes?
Rich Grise, Plainclothes Hippie
I'm about to embark on a websearch that could ultimately tell me some
of the numbers about protons and black holes.
Everybody's heard of a proton, right?
And practically everybody (at least english-speaking internet geeks)
has heard of a black hole, right?
I wonder if anybody's done comparative numbers on the effective mass
vs. dimensions of the two. Like, are they conceptually equivalent,
or could, maybe, protons (and their sisters, neutrons) actually _BE_
teeny, tiny, infinitesimallyy smalll BLACK HOLES?????
Thanks,
Rich
Ian Parker
quarks.
Yes I suppose it is possible to construct a Theory of Everything
through black holes and the spin of multidimensional black holes but I
have never seen it done.
john jardine
"Ian Parker" <ianpa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1132687632.9...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
It might though account for that 80% of the known universe curiously mislaid
by the paid specialists :-)
regards
john
Mark Martin
Although a proton has no well defined radius, it is true that the
quarks occupy a region with a radius of at least 1.2 x 10^-15 m. A
proton has a mass of 1.675 x 10^-27 kg, for which the Swarzschild
radius is 39 orders of magnitude smaller than the proton radius I've
given. So no, a proton isn't a micro-black hole.
-Mark Martin
Rene Tschaggelar
In addition to what has been said, there is a probability
of tiny black holes of whatever size. The smaller they
are the faster evaporate into normal matter though.
Hawkins didn't yet foretell how such evaporation is to
be thought to happen. The loss of binding energy can
be huge.
Rene
Sam Wormley
http://particleadventure.org/particleadventure/frameless/chart_cutouts/particle_chart.jpg
brian a m stuckless
The MORE "orders of magnitude smaller" ..the MORE micro a Black Hole.
[ A GR-WORLD-point CANNOT exhibit SiZE or SHAPE, on GR-WORLD-lines. ]
[ There are NO Black Holes with mass in GR ..G_uv & T_uv UNrelated. ]
[ THEREfore, any GR Black Hole was, AGAiN, simply a GR-WORLD-point. ]
$ "Micro" means "orders of magnitude smaller"-LiKE ..duh.
The MORE "orders of magnitude smaller" ..the MORE micro a Black Hole.
[ A GR-WORLD-point CANNOT exhibit SiZE or SHAPE, on GR-WORLD-lines. ]
[ There are NO Black Holes with mass in GR ..G_uv & T_uv UNrelated. ]
[ THEREfore, any GR Black Hole was, AGAiN, simply a GR-WORLD-point. ]
brian a m stuckless
>><> >><> >><> >><> >><>
FrediFizzx
news:uOLgf.566779$x96.147256@attbi_s72...
| Protons are made up of two up quarks and a down quark (uud)
|
http://particleadventure.org/particleadventure/frameless/chart_cutouts/particle_chart.jpg
Ya forgot the gluons. ;-) Protons are made up of three quarks plus
gluons which are very important.
FrediFizzx
Sam Wormley
Good catch!
Old Man
news:pan.2005.11.22....@example.com...
The nucleon-nucleon force isn't that of gravitation.
The N-N force has repulsive, as well as attractive,
components. The size of the repulsive core is many
orders of magnitude larger than the Schwarzschild
radius for a black hole of the same mass. At typical
N-N distances in nuclei, the attractive component is
much stronger than that of gravitation.
The deuteron couldn't be held together by gravitation.
Hawking hypothesizes that a black hole with mass
less than ~ 10^(-8) kg (Planck mass) would decay
very rapidly (Planck time). Nucleon mass is many
orders of magnitude less than this.
[Old Man]
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
A charged black hole has a maximum charge-to-mass ratio, and a spinning
black hole has a maximum angular momentum-to-mass ratio. If these are
exceeded, you don't have an event horizon, but instead have a "naked
singularity."
The charges and spins of all known elementary particles far exceed this
maximum value.
So, no, the proton can't be a black hole.
Steve Carlip
Androcles
"Rich Grise, Plainclothes Hippie" <f...@example.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.11.22....@example.com...
> Hi. :-)
>
> I'm about to embark on a websearch that could ultimately tell me some
> of the numbers about protons and black holes.
>
> Everybody's heard of a proton, right?
Nah... what is it?
What is it made of?
>
> And practically everybody (at least english-speaking internet geeks)
> has heard of a black hole, right?
What's that, a kind of tooth fairy?
>
> I wonder if anybody's done comparative numbers on the effective mass
> vs. dimensions of the two.
Oh, you want to know how many angels dance on the head of a pin!
3.1419265, of course.
In agreement with experience we further assume a round pin is
taller than an angle or angel, whatever.
> Like, are they conceptually equivalent,
> or could, maybe, protons (and their sisters, neutrons) actually _BE_
> teeny, tiny, infinitesimallyy smalll BLACK HOLES?????
Yeah, sure. Whatever floats your boat. Protons are holes in the fabric of
the spacetime continuum, a vacuum in a vacuum, swallowing everything near
them
until somone empties out the paper bag.
You must be right, I've agreed with you. Would you like some more candy,
little one? (???????????????????????????)... mustn't forget the extra
question marks.
Androcles.
donsto...@hotmail.com
going to lose your credibility.
Mark Martin
> $ "Micro" means "orders of magnitude smaller"-LiKE ..duh.
> The MORE "orders of magnitude smaller" ..the MORE micro a Black Hole.
> [ A GR-WORLD-point CANNOT exhibit SiZE or SHAPE, on GR-WORLD-lines. ]
> [ There are NO Black Holes with mass in GR ..G_uv & T_uv UNrelated. ]
> [ THEREfore, any GR Black Hole was, AGAiN, simply a GR-WORLD-point. ]
> >><> >><> >><> >><> >><>
Tell you what. You go discuss this with Aut. I'm sure this sort of
thing is of the utmost criticality to her as well. Tell me how it all
comes out.
-Mark Martin
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
You must guess what the next question is...
--
Dirk
The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org
Jeff_Relf
Hi Ignoramus1487 and Rich_Grise, Ignoramus wrote:
Since the mass and "size" of protons is about the same as neutrons,
and we know that densely packed "neutron matter" does not collapse,
we can conclude that protons are not miniature black holes.
No one knows the density of a proton, even its location is not well known,
it's more of a virtual field than a physical particle.
All the same, I think its density, whatever it might be,
is a remnant of earlier, much greater densities.
zzbu...@netscape.net
> The MORE "orders of magnitude smaller" ..the MORE micro a Black Hole.
> [ A GR-WORLD-point CANNOT exhibit SiZE or SHAPE, on GR-WORLD-lines. ]
> [ There are NO Black Holes with mass in GR ..G_uv & T_uv UNrelated. ]
> [ THEREfore, any GR Black Hole was, AGAiN, simply a GR-WORLD-point. ]
> >><> >><> >><> >><> >><>
> Mark Martin wrote: > > Rich Grise, Plainclothes Hippie wrote:
> > > Hi. :-) > >
> > > I'm about to embark on a websearch that could ultimately tell
> > > me some of the numbers about protons and black holes.
> > >
> > > Everybody's heard of a proton, right?
> > >
> > > And practically everybody (at least english-speaking internet
> > > geeks) has heard of a black hole, right?
> > >
> > > I wonder if anybody's done comparative numbers on the effective
> > > mass vs. dimensions of the two. Like, are they conceptually
> > > equivalent, or could, maybe, protons (and their sisters,
> > > neutrons) actually _BE_ teeny, tiny, infinitesimallyy smalll
> > > BLACK HOLES?????
> >
> > Although a proton has no well defined radius, it is true
> > that the quarks occupy a region with a radius of at least
> > 1.2 x 10^-15 m. A proton has a mass of 1.675 x 10^-27 kg, for
> > which the Swarzschild radius is 39 orders of magnitude smaller
> > than the proton radius I've given. So no, a proton isn't a
> > micro-black hole.
Protons are anti-black holes though.
Since Hawking radiation wouldn't exist
if protons were'nt anti-black holes.
> >
> > -Mark Martin
>
> $ "Micro" means "orders of magnitude smaller"-LiKE ..duh.
> The MORE "orders of magnitude smaller" ..the MORE micro a Black Hole.
> [ A GR-WORLD-point CANNOT exhibit SiZE or SHAPE, on GR-WORLD-lines. ]
> [ There are NO Black Holes with mass in GR ..G_uv & T_uv UNrelated. ]
> [ THEREfore, any GR Black Hole was, AGAiN, simply a GR-WORLD-point. ]
GR can't ANYTIHNG in it except TENSORS.
Which is why the only people who erven use it are
the Tensors wanks in internet and sci.phyics.
. Snice it doesn't even have light in it,
it's only got evaporating fields.
> brian a m stuckless
> >><> >><> >><> >><> >><>
brian a m stuckless
> In sci.physics Rich Grise, Plainclothes Hippie <f...@example.com> wrote:
> > Hi. :-) >
> > I'm about to embark on a websearch that could ultimately tell me some
> > of the numbers about protons and black holes.
>
> > Everybody's heard of a proton, right?
>
> > And practically everybody (at least english-speaking internet geeks)
> > has heard of a black hole, right?
>
> > I wonder if anybody's done comparative numbers on the effective mass
> > vs. dimensions of the two. Like, are they conceptually equivalent,
> > or could, maybe, protons (and their sisters, neutrons) actually _BE_
> > teeny, tiny, infinitesimallyy smalll BLACK HOLES?????
>
> A charged black hole has a maximum charge-to-mass ratio, and a spinning
$ "Micro" means "orders of magnitude smaller"-LiKE ..duh.
The MORE "orders of magnitude smaller" ..the MORE micro a Black Hole.
[ A GR-WORLD-point CANNOT exhibit SiZE or SHAPE, on GR-WORLD-lines. ]
[ There are NO Black Holes with mass in GR ..G_uv & T_uv UNrelated. ]
[ THEREfore, any GR Black Hole was, AGAiN, simply a GR-WORLD-point. ]
$ The non-GR Blackhole mass M1
[ A GR Schwartzchild "radius" 2*G*M1 / c^2 is NOT a GR calculation. ]
[ Mathematically speaking there is NO constraint on non-GR mass M1. ]
[ Mathematically speaking the 2*G*M1 / c^2 is 2*G*(ANY mass) / c^2. ]
[ Mathematically speaking the 2*G*M1 / c^2 fits 2*G*(PROTON) / c^2. ]
YES, any PROTON is a TRUE micro-Blackhole, mathematically speaking.!!
brian a m stuckless
>><> >><> >><> >><> >><>
> -- If these are
> exceeded, you don't have an event horizon, but instead have a "naked
> singularity."
>
> The charges and spins of all known elementary particles far exceed this
> maximum value.
>
> So, no, the proton can't be a black hole.
>
> Steve Carlip
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes?
hanson
news:HcedndHMsvm...@prairiewave.com...
> "Rich Grise, Plainclothes Hippie" <f...@example.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2005.11.22....@example.com...
>> of the numbers about protons and black holes.
>> vs. dimensions of the two. Like, are they conceptually equivalent,
>> or could, maybe, protons (and their sisters, neutrons) actually _BE_
>> teeny, tiny, infinitesimallyy smalll BLACK HOLES?????
>
> The nucleon-nucleon force isn't that of gravitation.
>
But Jako, Grise is not asking about that. He, AFAICS does want
to know whether nucleons could be (described as) black holes.
However, despite the nebulous answers from the other posters,
speculations in these realms and domains can be done in so
very many ways & fashions, that one can conjecture & look at all
these processes and events with equal validity, as long as the dims
and the digits do fit. i.e. ..... I can produce a picture/conjecture that
delivers an estimate to the OP's question that Protons can be described
as quantum black holes in a fashion that's based on two self-evident
principles:
a) Nature is self-similar over all observable domains.
b) The unit systems (cgs etc) is internally self-consistent and all
fundamental physical constants must be expressible by/thru/with
combinations of other ones.
With that in mind, the proton(mass), m_p, can easily be expressed
in terms of being a black hole:
m_p, the proton mass, is a torus type construct that is a blackhole
of one (1) Plancklength radius across to its Schwarzschild event
horizon which is shrouded within an outer Coulomb type accretion
zone of EM charge energy (F, Faraday, not Farad) that interacts with
other charges which produce the measurable effects of the 13.5 eV
H-ionization potential and its associated Lyman series limit frequency.
Here is the QUANTITATIVE equation:
m_p = Schw.radius * Plank length * Coulomb/radiation parameters.
m_p = [c^2/2G]*[sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)]*[I_H/(f_L*F)]*(3*pi^2)*sqrt(2a)
m_p = 1.67E-24 gr (so, argue with the numbers not with me...ahaha)
In other words still, it says:
The Hydrogen nucleus (m_p) is a black hole with [***]
--- the classical Schwartzschild limit or event horizon of (c^2/2G) at
--- a radius of 1 Planck length sqrt(hG/2pi*c^3) and is shrouded in
--- a substance-characteristic Coulomb mantle, being the product of,
--- the H-Ionisation potential multiplier of 13.5
.... [I_H=4pi^4*sqrt(a)/sqrt(6)],
--- the Lyman series frequency limit (f_L), and
--- the Faraday Constant (F, the charge transfer handler),
.... and is further governed by
--- toroidal geometry demands of (3*pi^2) and
--- EM/QM fine structure conditions set by [sqrt(2*a)].
[***] Consider the distance between this event horizon and the larger,
classically measured H-radius as the "nuclear accretion zone" analog.
In case of leptons, here the electron m_e, the e-shell Ionization-potential
considerations do fall away and the situation changes to:
m_e = [c^2/G] * [sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)] * [1/(f_L*F)] * a*pi*sqrt(3)/3
m_e = 9.09E-28 gr
It says essentially the same as above, except that as already noted ,
there are no ionization considerations and that the electron's geometry
is spherical (instead of toroidal as in the composite H-atom)
Also, it indicates that the electron may be a rotating Kerr black hole
type character with the Kerr- [c^2/G] (instead of the Schwartzschild
[c^2/2G]) event horizon.
>
Now figure out and post the equations for m_n, the neutron and
other particles and cough up a numerical table for mass spectrum
(with having set the electron mass m_e as "One", 1, for comparison)
>
[Jako to Rich Grise]
> The nucleon-nucleon force isn't that of gravitation.
> The N-N force has repulsive, as well as attractive,
> components. The size of the repulsive core is many
> orders of magnitude larger than the Schwarzschild
> radius for a black hole of the same mass. At typical
> N-N distances in nuclei, the attractive component is
> much stronger than that of gravitation.
> The deuteron couldn't be held together by gravitation.
> Hawking hypothesizes that a black hole with mass
> less than ~ 10^(-8) kg (Planck mass, M_pl) would decay
> very rapidly (Planck time, T_pl). Nucleon mass is many
> orders of magnitude less than this.
>
[hanson]
In a way, right, deuterons and other combo particle are not held
glued together by gravitation alone, but if the Planck mass M_pl is
a black hole then is not ordinary matter any longer and it, like all
other black hole matter, large or small, is shut off from the visible
universe by definition and I would change your statement from
"decaying rapidly" into a corollary to the "virtual QM game" & say:
".... a black hole with mass less than ~ 10^(-8) kg (Planck mass,
M_pl) may pop in and out of a (Dirac's) virtual particle sea in very
rapid intervals with flash durations lasting only 1 Planck time, T_pl.
... to which I might add now that, based on my above quantitative
conjecture, a process (unknown?) is working here that grabs and
enshrines these emergent Planck masses with EM-quanta, which
gives them long, very long life times and makes them interactive
with and visible to other like siblings.... and now go forth and invent
a new cosmology! ... AHAHAHAHA.... I love these mind games!.....
ahahaha... hanson
Happy Hippy
That's exactly what the Galaxy Model says:
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/
Galaxies are the same thing as atoms.
The nuclei of galaxies (the so-called
'Black Hole') are the same thing as the protons
at the center of atoms.
The electrons of atoms are the same thing as
the arms of stars around galaxies, and they, too,
are made of still smaller atoms with...........
wait for it........still smaller 'Black Holes'/protons
at *their* centers.
Proceed upward or downward as far as you want with
this- the ultimate fractals.
John
Dr Photon
>I wonder if anybody's done comparative numbers on the effective >mass
>vs. dimensions of the two. Like, are they conceptually equivalent,
>or could, maybe, protons (and their sisters, neutrons) actually _BE_
>teeny, tiny, infinitesimallyy smalll BLACK HOLES?????
Even Einstein had a go at stuff like this
http://www.krioma.net/articles/Bridge%20Theory/Einstein%20Rosen%20Bridge.htm
"The purpose of the paper of Einstein and Rosen was not to promote
faster-than-light or inter-universe travel, but to attempt to explain
fundamental particles like electrons as space-tunnels threaded by
electric lines of force."
but it had too many objections and not enough solutions to catch on.
br
donsto...@hotmail.com
in????? Is the traffic on it usually pretty fast?
Sam Wormley
> Galaxies are the same thing as atoms.
They have no relationship, whatsoever.
If you want to make progress understanding atoms and the particles
involved, including interaction with light, you can only make progress
with quantum mechanics.
If you want to make progress understanding galactic structure and
behavior, the tool to use is general relativity (including Newtonian
mechanics and the assumption of dark matter).
Happy Hippy
> are misleading and confusing. They are mostly not like atoms.
>
> i
>
OK.
Galaxies are *exactly* like atoms.
(Except for scale.)
How's that?
John
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/
Sam Wormley
> OK.
> Galaxies are *exactly* like atoms.
> (Except for scale.)
They have no relationship, whatsoever.
Happy Hippy
Galaxies are made from atoms.
Galaxies and atoms both have nuclei which are thousands as times as
dense as their surrounding structures.
Galaxies and atoms both inhabit a spherical volume of space.
Galaxies and atoms both undergo reactions with others of their kind
in which parts are exchanged and energy is released.
etc, etc, etc.
No seeum a same-um thing-um? C'mon Sam, here,Sam, c'mere Sam, nice
little Sam-um. There you go, you can think-um a little-um. (-:
John
Galaxy Model for the atom
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/
Old Man
news:%cTgf.1120$R42.608@trnddc01...
> Jako Epke aka "Old Man" <nom...@nomail.net> wrote in message
> news:HcedndHMsvm...@prairiewave.com...
>> "Rich Grise, Plainclothes Hippie" <f...@example.com> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2005.11.22....@example.com...
>>> I'm about to embark on a websearch that could ultimately tell me some
>>> of the numbers about protons and black holes.
>>> I wonder if anybody's done comparative numbers on the effective mass
>>> vs. dimensions of the two. Like, are they conceptually equivalent,
>>> or could, maybe, protons (and their sisters, neutrons) actually _BE_
>>> teeny, tiny, infinitesimallyy smalll BLACK HOLES?????
>>
> [Jako]
>> The nucleon-nucleon force isn't that of gravitation.
>>
> [hanson]
> But Jako, Grise is not asking about that. He, AFAICS does want
> to know whether nucleons could be (described as) black holes.
The OP wants to know if the nucleon-nucleon potential
can exhibit a repulsive core of size ~ 10^(-13) cm while
nucleon mass / energy is localized within a Schwarzschild
radius of 10^(-52) cm. Go figure.
> However, despite the nebulous answers from the other posters,
> speculations in these realms and domains can be done in so
> very many ways & fashions, that one can conjecture & look at all
> these processes and events with equal validity, as long as the dims
> and the digits do fit. i.e. ..... I can produce a picture/conjecture that
> delivers an estimate to the OP's question that Protons can be described
> as quantum black holes in a fashion that's based on two self-evident
> principles:
>
> a) Nature is self-similar over all observable domains.
> b) The unit systems (cgs etc) is internally self-consistent and all
> fundamental physical constants must be expressible by/thru/with
> combinations of other ones.
>
> With that in mind, the proton(mass), m_p, can easily be expressed
> in terms of being a black hole:
> m_p, the proton mass, is a torus type construct
A "toroidal" mass distribution (mass quadrupole
moment) is what GTR predicts for a rotating black
hole. The black hole's angular momentum is
limited by J < M^2 (in stupid units of c = G = 1).
The proton has J = hbar / 2. Therefore,
sqrt( hbar / 2 ) < m_proton
If the electron is a black hole, then
sqrt( hbar / 2 ) < m_electron
Go figure.
> that is a blackhole
> of one (1) Plancklength radius across to its Schwarzschild event
> horizon which is shrouded within an outer Coulomb type accretion
> zone of EM charge energy
Shrouded ? e^2 >> G (m_p)^2. hanson needs to
calculate the quantity of charge that can be bound
within radius, r_proton (known charge radius ~ 1 fm),
by a black hole of mass, m_proton.
What hanson is doing here is futile. The proton is
known to be a composite particle. The forces
between the constituents are much greater than those
of gravitation. The question of whether or not the
constituents (quarks) are black holes is irrelevant.
[Old Man]
Don Bowey
<J0...@accesscomm.ca> wrote:
Your logic is...... impeccably like:
A dog is a mammal
A cat is a mammal
Therefore a dog is a cat.
Or
A dime is round and flat
A quarter is round and flat
Therefore a dime is a quarter.
Mark Martin
Happy Hippy wrote:
> No seeum a same-um thing-um? C'mon Sam, here,Sam, c'mere Sam, nice
> little Sam-um. There you go, you can think-um a little-um. (-:
Hmmm. This reminds me of those racial stereotype injuns I used to
see in old, cheap westerns. (And cartoons. Don't forget the cartoons!)
-Mark Martin
hanson
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... why did argue you with me, Jako? Equn.
m_p = [c^2/2G]*[sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)]*[I_H/(f_L*F)]*(3*pi^2)*sqrt(2a)
... are creatures of Lyman, Faraday, Newton, Planck and Arnie, etc....
They rule!.. They rock, dude! See below, but DON'T let'em crank you!!news:xv2dnXnVLNsOcRne...@prairiewave.com...
news:HcedndHMsvm...@prairiewave.com...http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.design/msg/53371ffd43fe32b9
>>
>> [hanson]
>> a) Nature is self-similar over all observable domains.
>> b) The unit systems (cgs etc) is internally self-consistent and all
>> fundamental physical constants must be expressible by/thru/with
>> combinations of other ones.
>> With that in mind, the proton(mass), m_p, can easily be expressed
>> in terms of being a black hole:
>> m_p, the proton mass, is a torus type construct
>> the proton(mass), m_p, can easily be expressed
>> in terms of being a black hole:
>> m_p, the proton mass, is a torus type construct
>> of one (1) Plancklength radius across to its Schwarzschild event
>> horizon which is shrouded within an outer Coulomb type accretion
===== [Jako comm.2 see below]
> A "toroidal" mass distribution (mass quadrupole
> moment) is what GTR predicts for a rotating black
> hole. The black hole's angular momentum is limited
> by J < M^2 (in stupid units of c = G = 1).
> The proton has J = hbar / 2. Therefore,
> sqrt( hbar / 2 ) < m_proton
> If the electron is a black hole, then
> sqrt( hbar / 2 ) < m_electron
> Go figure.
>
> Shrouded ? e^2 >> G (m_p)^2. hanson needs to
> calculate the quantity of charge that can be bound
> within radius, r_proton (known charge radius ~ 1 fm),
> by a black hole of mass, m_proton.
> What hanson is doing here is futile. The proton is
> known to be a composite particle. The forces
> between the constituents are much greater than those
> of gravitation. The question of whether or not the
> constituents (quarks) are black holes is irrelevant.
>
... ahahaha... AHAHAHA... why are you getting so defensive,
Jako, to the point of sounding jealous? You tell me that you
need 2 theories, QM and GTR, (being not compatible, to boot)
to give you a side-step-argument to come up with "if/thens" and
">>" guesses... which then require the need for you to calculate
with "(in stupid units of c = G = 1)"...while you are forced to invoke
quarks that nobody has ever seen... only to finally declare the issue
as irrelevant. ... ahAHAHA... Why all that palaver, Jako, when I gave
you ONE equation that brings out distinct black hole characteristics
AND a quite accurate mass amount... based on 2 principles which
are much more fundamental then your 2 incompatible theories:
::: a) Nature is self-similar over all observable domains.
::: b) The unit systems (cgs etc) is internally self-consistent and all
::: fundamental physical constants must be expressible by/thru/with
::: combinations of other ones.
::P:: m_p = [c^2/2G]*[sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)]*[I_H/(f_L*F)]*(3*pi^2)*sqrt(2a)
::E:: m_e = [c^2/G] * [sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)] * [1/(f_L*F)] * a*pi*sqrt(3)/3
These eqautions, ::P:: & ::E::, they rock, when compared to yours, dude!
Semiseriously, Jako, can't you see or don't want to admit that I simply
used a DIFFERENT TOOL, a different instrument, then you did, to tell a
story about a the same event? There are always very many different
ways to skin the cat!... Only religious folks believe differently... ahaha...
So, let me reiterate for your benefit what I had said at the end of the
post below: ........"I love these mind games!"... ahahaha... AHAHAHA...
Remember, Jako, the great Max Planck had a view akin, him saying:
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest
is poetry, imagination." -- Max Planck..... (Thanks Greg Hansen,)
>
>> [Jako to Rich Grise]
>>> The nucleon-nucleon force isn't that of gravitation.
>>> The N-N force has repulsive, as well as attractive,
>>> components. The size of the repulsive core is many
>>> orders of magnitude larger than the Schwarzschild
>>> radius for a black hole of the same mass. At typical
>>> N-N distances in nuclei, the attractive component is
>>> much stronger than that of gravitation.
>>> The deuteron couldn't be held together by gravitation.
>>> Hawking hypothesizes that a black hole with mass
>>> less than ~ 10^(-8) kg (Planck mass, M_pl) would decay
>>> very rapidly (Planck time, T_pl). Nucleon mass is many
>>> orders of magnitude less than this.
>>>
>> [hanson]
===== [hanson comm.1 see below]
>> In a way, right, deuterons and other combo particle are not held
>> glued together by gravitation alone, but if the Planck mass M_pl is
>> a black hole then is not ordinary matter any longer and it, like all
>> other black hole matter, large or small, is shut off from the visible
>> universe by definition and I would change your statement from
>> "decaying rapidly" into a corollary to the "virtual QM game" & say:
>> ".... a black hole with mass less than ~ 10^(-8) kg (Planck mass,
>> M_pl) may pop in and out of a (Dirac's) virtual particle sea in very
>> rapid intervals with flash durations lasting only 1 Planck time, T_pl.
>> ... to which I might add now that, based on my above quantitative
>> conjecture, a process (unknown?) is working here that grabs and
>> enshrines these emergent Planck masses with EM-quanta, which
>> gives them long, very long life times and makes them interactive
>> with and visible to other like siblings
===== [hanson comm.1 see below]
.... and now go forth and invent a new cosmology! ... AHAHAHAHA....
>> ahahahaha.... I love these mind games!..... ahahaha... hanson
>>
[hanson]
===== [hanson comm.1}
Pick on this paragraph above Jako!!
You believe that a M_pl BH disappears in T_pl. So, why does it
disappear and where will your M_pl BH go to?... ahaha...
Jako, I, just see things differently then you do... and I ENJOY it, Jako.
... And one of these days I will, (fancy depending) even produce the
quantitative value for the half-life of a free neutron from the principles
::: a) Nature is self-similar over all observable domains.
::: b) The unit systems (cgs etc) is internally self-consistent and all
::: fundamental physical constants must be expressible by/thru/with
::: combinations of other ones.
Maybe I'll throw in the scaling laws to make my instrument pointier.
ahahaha... AHAHAHA.....Take care and have fun, Jako!
ahahaha... ahahanson
Happy Hippy
John: "But.but.......but, Sam.........they are both
mammals, they are both pets, they both have four legs,
they are similar morphologically in most ways (except
a cat's clavicle is unarticulated to the rest of its
skeleton), etc, etc."
Sam: "Dimes and quarters have no relationship- whatsoever."
John: "Flat. Round. Money. Metal. etc, etc."
You guys need some help in pattern-recognition.
This is crucial, because Science is mostly about
pattern-recognition.
You are pattern-recognition challenged.
This may be because you learned by rote.
Not a good idea.
John
John Sefton
> Rich Grise, Plainclothes Hippie wrote:
>
>>
>>I'm about to embark on a websearch that could ultimately tell me some
>>of the numbers about protons and black holes.
>>
>>
>>And practically everybody (at least english-speaking internet geeks)
>>has heard of a black hole, right?
>>
>>vs. dimensions of the two. Like, are they conceptually equivalent,
>>or could, maybe, protons (and their sisters, neutrons) actually _BE_
>>teeny, tiny, infinitesimallyy smalll BLACK HOLES?????
>
>
> quarks occupy a region with a radius of at least 1.2 x 10^-15 m. A
> proton has a mass of 1.675 x 10^-27 kg, for which the Swarzschild
> radius is 39 orders of magnitude smaller than the proton radius I've
> given. So no, a proton isn't a micro-black hole.
>
>
So, you have some (questionable) numbers and they
don't add up. Perhaps that large volume outside of
the calculated S. radius is full of dark matter!!??
Or fuckin fairies. Or currents of Dark Energy!!
And they *always* surround protons in precise
tori to make our mass add up and our incredibly
stupid gravity theory still appear to work. All you
guys need are loinclothes and a missionary to put
in your pot.
Black Holes are at galaxies' centers.
Galaxies exist singly or in various modes of association
including large clusters.
So do atoms.
Galaxies are mostly space.
So are atoms.
Galaxies' central nuclei are very dense compared to the rest
of the structure.
So are atoms'.
Galaxies occupy a spherical region of space ( they
have spherical 'halos' of stars.)
So do atoms.
Galaxies interact with each other.
So do atoms.
Excited galaxies give off energy packets. (They are
observed to release Quasars.)
Excited atoms give off photons.
So.........you say your numbers disagree?
Maybe it's D.M. or D.E., like I said. Or fairies.
Or, hey, hey, maybe God is fuckin with your mind,
man!! (-:
John
Galaxy Model for the Atom
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/
Mark Martin
John Sefton wrote:
> So, you have some (questionable) numbers and they
> don't add up. Perhaps that large volume outside of
> the calculated S. radius is full of dark matter!!??
> Or fuckin fairies. Or currents of Dark Energy!!
> And they *always* surround protons in precise
> tori to make our mass add up and our incredibly
> stupid gravity theory still appear to work. All you
> guys need are loinclothes and a missionary to put
> in your pot.
Speaking of pot, have you any? Wait... What am I thinking? Of course
YOU have some.
-Mark Martin
Happy Hippy
out
)-:
Old Man
> [hanson]
> ahahaha... AHAHAHA... why did argue you with me, Jako? Equn.
> m_p = [c^2/2G]*[sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)]*[I_H/(f_L*F)]*(3*pi^2)*sqrt(2a)
> m_e = [c^2/G] * [sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)] * [1/(f_L*F)] * a*pi*sqrt(3)/3.
> ... are creatures of Lyman, Faraday, Newton, Planck and Arnie, etc....
> They rule!.. They rock, dude! See below, but DON'T let'em crank you!!
Is the proton a black hole ?
A (internal) "toroidal" mass distribution (an external mass
quadrupole moment) is what GTR predicts for a rotating
black hole. The black hole's angular momentum is limited
by J < M^2 (in stupid units of c = G = 1).
The proton has J = hbar / 2. Therefore,
sqrt( hbar / 2 ) < m_proton
If the electron is a black hole, then
sqrt( hbar / 2 ) < m_electron
Go figure, but not in stupid units of c = G = 1. Put the
c's and G's back in, and then tell Old Man if the given
inequalities are true.
[Old Man]
Sam Wormley
>
> Black Holes are at galaxies' centers.
Super massive black holes are found in many galaxies, but not all.
> Galaxies exist singly or in various modes of association
> including large clusters.
There are some far away from associations... not many but some.
> So do atoms.
> Galaxies are mostly space.
Most everything in the universe is mostly empty space....
> So are atoms.
> Galaxies' central nuclei are very dense compared to the rest
> of the structure.
> So are atoms'.
> Galaxies occupy a spherical region of space ( they
> have spherical 'halos' of stars.)
Many Many galaxies are flattened disks... Many are irregular...
> So do atoms.
Atoms have interesting shapes due to a variety of orbitals...
> Galaxies interact with each other.
Everything in the universe interacts gravitationally...
> So do atoms.
> Excited galaxies give off energy packets. (They are
> observed to release Quasars.)
Quasars are black holes irradiated by infalling matter.
> Excited atoms give off photons.
>
> So.........you say your numbers disagree?
>
> Maybe it's D.M. or D.E., like I said. Or fairies.
> Or, hey, hey, maybe God is fuckin with your mind,
> man!! (-:
>
>
>
Galaxies and atoms have no relationship, whatsoever.
Sam Wormley
> Sam: "Dogs and cats have absolutely no relationship."
> John: "But.but.......but, Sam.........they are both
> mammals, they are both pets, they both have four legs,
> they are similar morphologically in most ways (except
> a cat's clavicle is unarticulated to the rest of its
> skeleton), etc, etc."
> Sam: "Dimes and quarters have no relationship- whatsoever."
> John: "Flat. Round. Money. Metal. etc, etc."
>
> You guys need some help in pattern-recognition.
> This is crucial, because Science is mostly about
> pattern-recognition.
> You are pattern-recognition challenged.
> This may be because you learned by rote.
> Not a good idea.
>
> John
Galaxies and atoms have no relationship, whatsoever.
If you want to make progress understanding atoms and the particles
involved, including interaction with light, you can only make progress
with quantum mechanics.
If you want to make progress understanding galactic structure and
behavior, the tool to use is general relativity (including Newtonian
mechanics and the assumption of dark matter).
Thanks, John, for registering at crank dot net
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22GALAXY+MODEL+For+The+ATOM%22+site%3Awww.crank.net
Bob Monsen
A theory is an abstract, incomplete view of things. The more incomplete it
is, the more things it applies to. Feynman pointed out that the process of
science is NOT to make our view of things simpler, but to make them more
precise, and thus more complicated. The art of science is making things
"as simple as possible, but not simpler" (Einstein).
---
Regards,
Bob Monsen
Mathematics takes us still further from what is human, into the region of
absolute necessity, to which not only the actual world, but every possible
world, must conform.
- Bertrand Russell
Kevin Aylward
> Hi Ignoramus1487 and Rich_Grise, Ignoramus wrote:
>
> Since the mass and "size" of protons is about the same as neutrons,
> and we know that densely packed "neutron matter" does not collapse,
> we can conclude that protons are not miniature black holes.
>
> No one knows the density of a proton, even its location is not well
> known, it's more of a virtual field than a physical particle.
This makes little sense to me.
"virtual" is associated with something that does not *physically* exist.
If it doesn't physically exist, it doesn't exist. End of story.
"Proton" is a name used for the set of measurements of an entity that
exits. Whether or not a proton is actually what we think of as a
particle is irrelevant. The entity that "proton" refers to exists, by
definition. That is, we can make physical measurements of it. The entity
has physical characteristics. We call that set of real, physical
measurements a "proton". A "proton" therefore physically exits. That's
what we mean by existence. It has measurable properties.
Kevin Aylward
431info...@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
Rich Grise, Plainclothes Hippie
> Rich Grise, Plainclothes Hippie wrote:
>> Hi. :-)
>>
>> I'm about to embark on a websearch that could ultimately tell me some
>> of the numbers about protons and black holes.
>>
>> Everybody's heard of a proton, right?
>>
>> And practically everybody (at least english-speaking internet geeks)
>> has heard of a black hole, right?
>>
>> I wonder if anybody's done comparative numbers on the effective mass
>> vs. dimensions of the two. Like, are they conceptually equivalent,
>> or could, maybe, protons (and their sisters, neutrons) actually _BE_
>> teeny, tiny, infinitesimallyy smalll BLACK HOLES?????
>
> Although a proton has no well defined radius, it is true that the
> quarks occupy a region with a radius of at least 1.2 x 10^-15 m. A
> proton has a mass of 1.675 x 10^-27 kg, for which the Swarzschild
> radius is 39 orders of magnitude smaller than the proton radius I've
> given. So no, a proton isn't a micro-black hole.
>
Well, I guess that settles that. :-)
Thanks!
Rich
Happy Hippy
Sam Wormley
Too bad you, John, think that there is similarity of pattern
between atoms and galaxies. Can you describe the pattern of
an atom?
Happy Hippy
I think you had a very intuitive idea.
John
Mark Martin
Happy Hippy wrote:
> I don't agree.
> I think you had a very intuitive idea.
Hey Sefton, do you know what the purpose of a falsifiable theory is?
It's purpose is to transcend intuition. The guy had an idea. The
numbers don't support it. Case closed.
-Mark Martin
Jeff_Relf
Hi Kevin_Aylward, Ignoramus1487 and Rich_Gris
I wrote:
No one knows the density of a proton, even its location is not well
known, it's more of a virtual field than a physical particle.
Kevin_Aylward replied:
This makes little sense to me.
"virtual" is associated with something that does not *physically* exist.
If it doesn't physically exist, it doesn't exist. End of story.
"Proton" is a name used for the set of measurements of an entity that
exits. Whether or not a proton is actually what we think of as a
particle is irrelevant. The entity that "proton" refers to exists, by
definition. That is, we can make physical measurements of it. The entity
has physical characteristics. We call that set of real, physical
measurements a "proton". A "proton" therefore physically exits. That's
what we mean by existence. It has measurable properties.
As Einstein once said,
I'd like to think the moon was still there even when I couldn't see it.
Einstein was good at precisely describing things
that couldn't be measured for decades yet to come.
For example, recent supernovae data has made
Einstein's so_called Greatest_Blunder, lambda, a.k.a. the Cosmological_Constant,
the leading theory of the cosmos... but much more data is still needed.
WikiPedia.ORG has this to say:
Adding a cosmological constant to the standard theory of cosmology
...has led to a model for cosmology known as the Lambda-CDM model.
This model is in very good agreement with
established cosmological observations.
__ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy
and:
In spite of its problems, the cosmological constant is in many respects
the most economical solution to the problem of cosmic acceleration.
One number successfully explains a multitude of observations.
Thus, the current standard model of cosmology, the Lambda-CDM model,
includes the cosmological constant as an essential feature.
__ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy#Cosmological_constant
Something is _Virtual_ if it exists only in essence, not in reality.
See: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=virtual
For example, a map is a _Virtual_ territory,
it merely represents something that physically exists,
it's not the thing itself.
To put it mildly, protons are imprefectly understood,
that makes them _Very_ virtual, far from real.
What they might really be, e.g. how dense they might be,
is not known to anyone... except maybe the next Einstein.
Now playing: Cirque_Du_Soleil's _Nostalgie_.MP3
http://www.Cotse.NET/users/jeffrelf/_Nostalgie_.MP3
P.S. Could someone translate this song for me ?
Nostalgie is a French word, so I assume the lyrics are French.
hanson
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/9595f8884ae0c140
[hanson]
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... why did argue you with me, Jako?
::E:: m_e = [c^2/G] * [sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)] * [1/(f_L*F)] * a*pi*sqrt(3)/3
These equations, ::P:: & ::E::, they rock, when compared to yours, dude!
Particles CAN be described by assigning BH characteristics to them.
The classically observed emanations from the electrons' or protons'
characteristics do arise from the properties of the product of the EM
charge transfer handler, the Faraday unit/constant F, and the Lyman
frequency limit f_L, BUT ONLY if these particles are seen as/described
as black holes of Planck length size dimensions.... ahahaha....
They are creatures of Lyman, Faraday, Newton, Planck and Arnie, etc....
They rule!.. They rock, dude! See below, but DON'T let'em crank you!!
>
> Is the proton a black hole ?
> A (internal) "toroidal" mass distribution (an external mass
> black hole. [2] The black hole's angular momentum is limited
> by (spin) J < M^2 (in stupid units of c = G = 1).
> [3] The proton has J = hbar / 2. Therefore, sqrt( hbar / 2 ) < m_proton
> If the electron is a black hole, then sqrt( hbar / 2 ) < m_electron
> Go figure, but not in stupid units of c = G = 1. Put the
> c's and G's back in, and then tell Old Man if the given
> inequalities are true.
>
From the more lucid remarks in your earlier posts it was clear that
you believe from your pov and in your mind that along the standard
line of inquiry via GTR/QM/Std particle model it says that particles are
NOT black holes. But apparently, all that this traditional wisdom has
done for you, Jako, is for you to ask me whether a predict from GTR
[1] is true when compared with an edict of QM [3], ... from 2 theories
about which all you traditionalists have moaned for generations now
that the 2 are incompatible... AHAHAHA... Jako, if you wanna be cool
then at least be funnier then to compare oranges with apples in [3] with
== sqrt( hbar / 2 ) [sqrt M*L^2/T] < m_proton [M], == where you have
obviously inequalities already at dimensional level, ... So, never mind the
numerical size of the issue.... ahahaha.... Jako, you decide yourself what
to do with your physico-political potatoe that you have tossed here up
into air .....ahahaha... AHAHAHA...
BTW, GTR as a predictor of toroidial mass distribution is to denigrate
that theory. ... Applied Euclidian geometry predicts that too... ahaha...
Now, it can be forgiven and be chuckled at and chortled over when
posters try to weasel out of arguments with rop-a-dope foot work...
But when a researcher of note like you, Jako Epke, does like what
you did after he sees 2 quantitative equations, P & E:
::P:: m_p = [c^2/2G]*[sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)]*[I_H/(f_L*F)]*(3*pi^2)*sqrt(2a)
::E:: m_e = [c^2/G] * [sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)] * [1/(f_L*F)] * a*pi*sqrt(3)/3
which arose from very different bases then GTR & QM does and yield
results that call for different INTERPRETATIONS, namely that particles
can be DESCRIBED by assigning BH characteristics to them, (BTW
something that is hinted at with "point-like" in the traditional lingo)
... then Jako, could one not expect that a persona like you, raises an
eyebrow and begins to wonder.... instead of seeing him reacting with
pedestrian weaseling like you did?... and even worse that he does gloss
over the following, .... or was this your way of acquiescing acceptance?
Here it is repeated for your benefit...
>
[Jako]
> The deuteron couldn't be held together by gravitation.
> ... a black hole with mass less than ~ 10^(-8) kg (Planck mass, M_pl)
> would decay very rapidly (Planck time, T_pl). Nucleon mass is many
> orders of magnitude less than this.
>
[hanson]
In a way, right, deuterons and other combo particle are not held
glued together by gravitation alone, but if the Planck mass, M_pl, is
a black hole then it is not ordinary matter any longer and it, like all
other black hole matter, large or small, is shut off from the visible
universe by definition and I would change your statement, Jako, from
"decaying rapidly" into a corollary to the "virtual QM game" & say:
".... a black hole with mass less than ~ 10^(-8) kg (Planck mass,
M_pl) may pop in and out of a (Dirac's) virtual particle sea in very
rapid intervals with flash durations lasting only 1 Planck time, T_pl....
.....
[added now] .... a possiliblity which you can conjecture from....
::P:: m_p = [c^2/2G]*[sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)]*[I_H/(f_L*F)]*(3*pi^2)*sqrt(2a)
::E:: m_e = [c^2/G] * [sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)] * [1/(f_L*F)] * a*pi*sqrt(3)/3
and can be gleaned specifically from the term:
[sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)] = L_pl = T_pl/c, T_pl b eing the Planck time as the
flash intervals that occur on the measurably level, signaling their presence
with/by the Lyman series limits photons f_L, and the EM charge handling
constant F, the Faraday. --- The experiment descriptions/evaluatiuons
that measure f_L & F do require the presence of another constant which
we have discussed in and on other occasions, conjuring up N_A and its
mole:
::: *** r_H / l_pl = a^(0) * (N_A*pi*sqrt3) ****
= 1 mole of Planck length units = 1 H-Bohr radius
::: *** m_pl / m_e = a^(1) * (N_A*pi*sqrt3) ****
= 1 mole of electron masses = 1 Planck mass
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/1377421f6490052e
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/55bc6e550452f7fa
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/a971769b268b35b2
[hanson]
... to which I might add now that based on my above quantitative
conjecture, processes (not yet observed or overlooked unknown)
are working here that grab and enshrine these emergent Planck
masses with EM-quanta, which gives them the observed stability
for their very long life times and makes them interactive with and
visible to other like siblings....
Indications for that conjecture abound, like in 0u*0e=1/c^2, (which
was buried in cgs but manifests in MKS & SI, or as in the parable
analogue that GTR is having Newton as a crude default). Then there's
Dirac's ocean & his LNH, vacuum charges & hordes of other theories.
Jako, as I've said, "I love these mind games!" ... AHAHAHAHA....
So, go and have a look too, dude... There might be a Xmas present
in there for you. But YOU'll have to open it... It will be ALL YOURS!
Merry X-mas, Jako
ahahaha... ahahahanson
__________________________________________
Happy Hippy
At different size scale other factors come into play,
obviously.
You can't say the numbers are always right.
John
Happy Hippy
Atoms come in many varieties.
Here's how my model explains the pattern
of the Periodic Table.
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/periodicpattern.GIF
John
Sam Wormley
> Atoms come in many varieties.
>
> Here's how my model explains the pattern
> of the Periodic Table.
> http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/periodicpattern.GIF
>
> John
No... I mean did you, John, think that electrons when around an atomic
nucleus like stars in a spiral galaxy?
David Brown
> 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.
Rich Grise, Plainclothes Hippie
I'd say, not to _transcend_, but to expand, or deepen, the mind/intuition
alignment.
;-)
Cheers!
Rich
Happy Hippy
And the numbers support.............galaxy rotation profiles?
Only if we infer a
totally new class of matter.
John
Rich The Philosopher
> Happy Hippy wrote:
>> Mark Martin wrote:
>>> Happy Hippy wrote:
>>>something...]
>>>> I don't agree.
>>>> I think you had a very intuitive idea.
>>>
>>> Hey Sefton, do you know what the purpose of a falsifiable theory
>>> is?
>>> It's purpose is to transcend intuition. The guy had an idea. The
>>> numbers don't support it. Case closed. -Mark Martin
>>>
>> And the numbers support.............galaxy rotation profiles?
>>
>> At different size scale other factors come into play, obviously.
>>
>> You can't say the numbers are always right.
>
> And the numbers support.............galaxy rotation profiles?
>
> Only if we infer a
> totally new class of matter.
>
Here's some possibly interesting reading about reality and stuff:
http://www.arthuryoung.com/ruexc.HTML
http://www.rightuseofwill.com/books.htm
http://www.godchannel.com
Oh, and it turns out that God loves us, but he doesn't like nukes. :-D
Cheers!
Rich
John Sefton
OK David.
Name your 5 main differences that preclude the comparison.
Please.
John
Happy Hippy
How do the stars in a spiral galaxy go around?
Do you think they go around in circles which
repeat in a sort of ecliptic plane?
Or might that ecliptic plane itself be rotating
around an axis within it? You do know that our
planets do this, do you not?
Are galaxies precessing?
Might this not lead to confusion about star
velocities (calculating pathways as 2D when they
are really 3D)?
What proof is there that they are?
What proof that they are not?
John
Sam Wormley
Stars are in Keplerian orbits. Electrons are not and cannot
even be described as having discrete boundaries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron
Happy Hippy
combination of kinetic and geometrical effects. This occurs if the jets
precess about a defined axis. The precession can result in the jet being
curved as observed in the plane of the sky, although any fluid particle
of the jet always follows a straight trajectory. This behaviour is
manifested in the plane of the sky as inversion (or 180$ ^\circ$
rotation) symmetry. For example, a bend to the right in one jet becomes
a bent to the left in the opposite jet. A typical example is the radio
galaxy NGC 326 which is shown in fig.(I.5). It is very likely that this
precession originates at the very base of the jet (see Begelman et al.,
1984, and references therein), close to the central engine.
Figure I.5: Inversion symmetry in the radio galaxies source associated
with NGC 326. The radio image of the galaxy shows a bend in the top left
jet implies a bend to the bottom right jet. This peculiar shape arise
because the jets precess about a certain axis, resulting in a cone-like
radio structure. The projection on the plane of the sky of this motion
produces inversion symmetry."
from Bending of jets in radio galaxies
"It is very likely that this precession originates at the very base of
the jet" means the disc itself is precessing.
The magnetic structure arising at right-angles to the Milky Way also
curves.
John
Happy Hippy
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
Sam Wormley
> 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
>
> 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.
David Brown
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".
Happy Hippy
Conic sections they may be, but the
cone is also orbitting.
John
Mark Martin
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
Rich The Philosopher
> 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
tadchem
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.
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
Bob Monsen
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
Rich Grise
...
> (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
Bob Monsen
>
> 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
Rich Grise
...
> 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
Bob Monsen
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
Happy Hippy
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/
Mark Martin
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
Mark Martin
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.
> 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.
> 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
David Brown
> 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.
Happy Hippy
(-:
John
Mark Martin
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
Rich Grise, Plainclothes Hippie
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
Rich Grise, Plainclothes Hippie
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
Rich Grise, Plainclothes Hippie
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
Rich Grise, Plainclothes Hippie
>
> 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_. :-)
>
> 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
> 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. ;-)
> 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
Happy Hippy
> 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
Mark Martin
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
Happy Hippy
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
Mark Martin
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
PD
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
Androcles
"PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1133468429.3...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
news:1133428326.6...@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.
Happy Hippy
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
)-:
Don Bowey
xtXjf.122163$Es4....@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk, "Androcles"
<Andr...@MyPlace.yep> wrote:
As trolls go, you have a fun topic, but a poor presentation, You should
work on it and come back another day.
Sam Wormley
>
> 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.
Charlie Edmondson
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
Mark Martin
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
Rich Grise, Plainclothes Hippie
> 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
Happy Hippy
DE?
Postulating whole new classes of things to prop
up 'suck gravity'?
In your view, is that 'as simply as
possible'?
John
Mark Martin
Happy Hippy wrote:
> 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
John Sefton
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
Dastardly Fiend
"Don Bowey" <dbo...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:BFB5B0F6.1BD5D%dbo...@comcast.net...
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.
Happy Hippy
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/
Mark Fergerson
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