Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom

[john]

1. Galaxies are precessing. Not only are
they precessing, but they are doing so
TWICE as fast as they are rotating.

Just ONE of the observations that
bear this out is here, in
Wikipedia, at
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_curve

"The rotation curves of spiral galaxies are asymmetric. The observational data from each side of a galaxy are generally averaged. Rotation curve asymmetry appears to be normal rather than exceptional.[2]"

Precession of the disc is why this is.

2 Galaxies are made from antimatter arms
and matter arms, as equally-proportioned
as possible.
No citation- oh yeah, me.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 7/26/2016 11:25 PM, john wrote:
> 1. Galaxies are precessing. Not only are
> they precessing, but they are doing so
> TWICE as fast as they are rotating.
>
> Just ONE of the observations that
> bear this out is here, in
> Wikipedia, at
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_curve
>
> "The rotation curves of spiral galaxies are asymmetric. The observational data from
> each side of a galaxy are generally averaged. Rotation curve asymmetry appears to be
> normal rather than exceptional.[2]"

No evidence of the claimed factor of two.

>
> Precession of the disc is why this is.
>
> 2 Galaxies are made from antimatter arms
> and matter arms, as equally-proportioned
> as possible.
> No citation- oh yeah, me.
>

Plenty of counter evidence against this.

Observational evidence trumps ideas, every single time.

--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[Michael Moroney]

john <johnse...@gmail.com> writes:

>1. Galaxies are precessing. Not only are
> they precessing, but they are doing so
> TWICE as fast as they are rotating.

And your evidence is....?
(and no, asymmetric rotation curves is not sufficient. It can just
as easily be explained by asymmetric dark matter distribution)

And your explanation of the violation of angular momentum that this
would require is...?

Your explanation of the enormous torque needed to cause them to precess
is....?

Your explanation of what holds the disk together in spite of these
amazing torques is....?

Flunk.

>2 Galaxies are made from antimatter arms
> and matter arms, as equally-proportioned
> as possible.
> No citation- oh yeah, me.

And your explanation of the lack of 511 keV radiation as electrons
and positrons annihilate each other is....?

And the composition of the arms of 3 arm spiral galaxies is....?

Double flunk.

And your "no citation" means that deep down inside, you *know* it's
all bullshit. But your OCD forces you to spew this crap, again and
again.

Of course, you will never address any of these issues. At most,
you'll go silent for a while and then repeat your obsession with
precessing spinny things.

Observation trumps theory, every single time.

[john]

Michael says

"
Your explanation of the enormous torque needed to cause them to precess
is....? "

YOUR explanation of the enormous
torque needed to make them ROTATE is?

It takes no torque at all in the special
cases where the precession is
a WHOLE NUMBER times the rotation.
Since every point in the matter finds
itself back at the same place once
every full rotation, all energy debts are cancelled
wrt the precession.

Prove this ain't so. Or go silent,
like when I say that evidence of
order at one size level proves
order for them all

[Odd Bodkin]

On 7/27/2016 9:26 AM, john wrote:
> Michael says
> "
> Your explanation of the enormous torque needed to cause them to precess
> is....? "
>
> YOUR explanation of the enormous
> torque needed to make them ROTATE is?

Rotation does not take torque, John. Precession does.
This is freshman physics.

>
> It takes no torque at all in the special
> cases where the precession is
> a WHOLE NUMBER times the rotation.

Reference?

> Since every point in the matter finds
> itself back at the same place once
> every full rotation, all energy debts are cancelled
> wrt the precession.

Um.... no.

>
> Prove this ain't so. Or go silent,

Go look at freshman physics.

> like when I say that evidence of
> order at one size level proves
> order for them all
>

[Michael Moroney]

john <johnse...@gmail.com> writes:

>Michael says
>"
>Your explanation of the enormous torque needed to cause them to precess
>is....? "

>YOUR explanation of the enormous
>torque needed to make them ROTATE is?

You need to learn simple mechanics.

No torque needed to keep something rotating at a constant angular
momentum. The ordinary laws of gravity and the laws of
conservation of angular momentum is what's needed to explain it.
Meanwhile, a precessing spinny thing starts spinning in one plane
but now precessing it requires the torque to produce an angular
acceleration to change the _direction_ of the rotation, and thus
the angular momentum. Remember, angular momentum is a conserved
quantity.

>It takes no torque at all in the special
>cases where the precession is
>a WHOLE NUMBER times the rotation.

That is so very, very wrong. Pulling crap like that from your
ass is no way to do physics.

Simple mechanics: T = Ia where T is the torque, I is the moment
of inertia and a is the angular acceleration. In the case of
your precession obsession, a is an angular acceleration at right
angles to the rotational axis.

>Since every point in the matter finds
>itself back at the same place once
>every full rotation, all energy debts are cancelled
>wrt the precession.

Not sufficient. You need a torque that would go in a
cycle, first in the x direction, then in the y direction,
then -x, then -y, then x...

It doesn't matter if over a cycle the sum is zero. You need
a varying torque over each cycle!

Where does this torque come from?

What about the violation of angular momentum?

You have no answer!

>Prove this ain't so. Or go silent,

See above. Or prove it for yourself. Get a gyroscope, get it
spinning and try to precess it. Feel the force? That is its
opposition to you applying a torque to it to get it rotating
in a different direction when you try to precess it.

Since you are obsessed with spinny things, I figure you must have
a dozen or two gyroscopes to play with.

[p.s. As much as you hate them, Big Pharma has some very good
medicines to help with your OCD. You should talk to your doctor
about it. No, I did NOT say to go visit Little Pharma!!!]

>like when I say that evidence of
>order at one size level proves
>order for them all

You never made any such proof!

[john]

Michael
It's like Calculus:
at the zero point of the rotation, it
takes zero to include precession.
Add incrementally.
You don't rotate it right up first and then
try to precess it! Of course that doesn't
work

[john]

Michael
Okay.
No torque to spin the disc?
How much to stop it?

The rotation/precession is 1/2.

[Michael Moroney]

Gibberish.

It is rotating and precessing at the same time. The rotation (angular
momentum) will continue in the same plane forever unless a torque is
applied. (Conservation of angular momentum)

Conversely, if a torque is applied the rotation (angular momentum)
will change (either rotational speed or direction of rotational axis).

So tell us. Where does this enormous torque come from????
Why do you believe angular momentum conservation is violated???
For that matter, what use is this precession, anyway? What does it
supposedly prove, what problem does it allegedly solve? Seems rather
useless to me.

[Michael Moroney]

john <johnse...@gmail.com> writes:

>Michael
>Okay.
>No torque to spin the disc?

No torque to keep it spinning. Elementary mechanics.

>How much to stop it?

L=Iw where L is the angular momentum, I=moment of inertia and w is the
rotation rate. However since a galaxy does not rotate as a unit, you'll
have to integrate over subsections rotating at the same rate.

T=Ia where T is the torque, I=moment of inertia and a is the angular
acceleration. Again, a will vary as different sections would need to be
slowed different amounts.

You do the math.

>The rotation/precession is 1/2.

What precession?

Where does the alleged torque to cause it to precess come from?
Explain the nonconservation of angular momentum involved, as it
precesses through one rotation.

You can't. I noticed you ignored all the previous times I asked these.

[noTthaTguY]

touche', whether the turtle is not lying, or if
hje does not or does define his precessionalities

[john]

Michael repeated

"No torque to keep it spinning. "

Okay, Michael. How much torque was
required to GET it spinning?
Where did THAT torque come from?

The question isn't "how was it done?",
the question is "what is it doing?",

[HVAC]

john

------------

Things John and BJ have in common. (Partial list)

Both dumb as a stump

Both believe in ghosts

Both have 'experimented' with homosexuality

Both believe in esp

Both believe in some fucked up version of god

Both hate America

Both believe in the 9/11 conspiracy

Both hate science

[HVAC]

john

------------

I wrote a paper on the formation of galaxies in the early universe. You should look at the work in this area. It's fascinating stuff. Computer modeling has added an entirely new dimension.

Or you and BJ can talk about intelligent design

[Michael Moroney]

john <johnse...@gmail.com> writes:

>Michael repeated

>"No torque to keep it spinning. "

>Okay, Michael. How much torque was
>required to GET it spinning?
>Where did THAT torque come from?

The angular momentum came from the net angular momentum of the clouds it
formed from. Off-center collisions/encounters can impart angular momentum
to various objects within a system, if you are about to ask where _that_
came from. Of course the net angular momentum of the system doesn't
change when this happens.

Anyway, my point is that once it got spinning, nothing is necessary to
_keep_ it spinning. Meanwhile your precessing spinny things need a
constantly varying torque, first in the +x, then to +y, then -x,
then -y over one complete cycle.

But to what purpose? What problems do precessing spinny things solve,
other than feeding your ravenous OCD?

>The question isn't "how was it done?",
>the question is "what is it doing?",

Well, it ain't precessing. That much is obvious. At least not without
violating laws of physics.

So are you going to tell us where this mysterious torque comes from
and why the laws of conservation of angular momentum are no longer
valid? I note you ignored this question yet again.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 7/28/2016 7:04 AM, john wrote:
> Michael repeated
>
> "No torque to keep it spinning. "
>
> Okay, Michael. How much torque was
> required to GET it spinning?
> Where did THAT torque come from?

John, you may not understand this, but cars passing each other in
opposite lanes on a straight stretch of highway have angular momentum
ALREADY, even though the cars are traveling straight. Now, if there were
some force of attraction between them, like a bungee cord strung between
them, they would end up rotating around each other, and there has been
NO TORQUE applied. The angular momentum after the bungee pull and the
onset of rotation is the SAME as the angular momentum before the bungee
connects and the cars are traveling straight.

This is all freshman physics.

And you might imagine how this would apply to galaxy formation.

>
> The question isn't "how was it done?",
> the question is "what is it doing?",
>
>

[john]

So- even though there are numerous
indications that galaxies are precessing,
because of YOUR laws of physics
you prefer to look for dark matter?
Wouldn't a lot of energy be stored in
such precession?

[Michael Moroney]

john <johnse...@gmail.com> writes:

>So- even though there are numerous
>indications that galaxies are precessing,

I have yet to see *ANY* such "indications"!
Except indications of OCD.

>because of YOUR laws of physics

THE (not my) laws of physics state precession violates the conservation of
angular momentum. Without a REAL good explanation, precession of galaxies
is simply a non-starter.

So, are you EVER going to answer my questions? Where does this enormous
torque/angular momentum that precesses galaxies come from?

Explain the non-conservation of angular momentum precession requires.

What holds the precessing disks together?

And Why Precession? It explains nothing, and its only use is to fuel your
OCD.

>Wouldn't a lot of energy be stored in
>such precession?

In whatever system provides the torque, maybe. If it actually existed, which
is extremely unlikely.

[Odd Bodkin]

John, you're talking out your ass.
Basic physics:
Rotation does not require torque.
Precession requires torque.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 7/28/2016 11:43 AM, john wrote:
> So- even though there are numerous
> indications that galaxies are precessing,

I really don't think there are clear indications that galaxies are
precessing as opposed to something else going on.

> because of YOUR laws of physics

THE laws of physics. Conservation of angular momentum has been known and
accepted since the middle 1600s. It is now 2016, by the way. Now, are
you suggesting that you would RATHER say that conservation of angular
momentum does NOT hold just so that galactic precession is now POSSIBLE
(even though not demonstrated), just so that dark matter would not be
needed? Doesn't that seem like a bit of a reach?

> you prefer to look for dark matter?
> Wouldn't a lot of energy be stored in
> such precession?
>

Note that precession would not account for the anomalies of the galactic
rotation curves. Or at least you have done no calculation that shows
that precession WOULD explain the anomaly.

So what exactly does galactic precession buy us, other than that you
like the way the motion looks?

[john]

So
Michael and Odd
HOW does something GET rotating
without applying torque?
AND
how fast does something need to be
rotating before you can precess it?

[B Gates]

Yet another example of HVAC's amazing knowledge of science and
astronomy. Is there anything he does not know?

HVAC doesn't hate science. He doesn't know enough about it to decide one
way or the other. He's a gay loser.

[B Gates]

While cosmology fantasy seems right up HVAC's imaginary alley, the
chances of him writing a paper, let alone getting an organization to
print it are well below zero.

You think because he says something that makes it true?
That is what he believes.

The rest of us are still trying to find his college and that book on
differential geometry (he could only spell that correctly because he
copied it from my post) he supposedly co-wrote! Co-wrote!
Bwahahahahaha! WHAT A LOSER!

[noTthaTguY]

the veep at that time, September eleventh, '001,
stOOd down the mormative Air Force flights to deal with it.

what was that guy's name?... oh, yeah;
trickieR Dick

> "The rotation curves of spiral galaxies are asymmetric. The observational data from each side of a galaxy are generally averaged. Rotation curve asymmetry appears to be normal rather than exceptional.[2]"
>
> Precession of the disc is why this is.
>
> 2 Galaxies are made from antimatter arms
> and matter arms, as equally-proportioned
> as possible.
> No citation- oh yeah, me.

[Michael Moroney]

john <johnse...@gmail.com> writes:

>So
>Michael and Odd
>HOW does something GET rotating
>without applying torque?

Asked and answered.

>AND
>how fast does something need to be
>rotating before you can precess it?

Any speed, but the higher rhe speed the more torque/angular momentum
you'll need to do that.

Have you made an appointment with a doctor regarding that OCD yet?

[john]

Michael

">HOW does something GET rotating
>without applying torque?

Asked and answered. "

Sorry- what is your answer here?

[Odd Bodkin]

On 7/28/2016 4:28 PM, john wrote:
> So
> Michael and Odd
> HOW does something GET rotating
> without applying torque?

John, I've already answered this with the example of cars driving past
each other on the highway and the bungee cord. In this case, there's an
onset of rotation with NO torque applied (angular momentum is conserved).

Now for galaxies, you can do the following swaps:
passing cars --> passing gas clouds or passing stars
bungee cord --> gravity

> AND
> how fast does something need to be
> rotating before you can precess it?
>

Speed has nothing to do with it. To get something precessing, you need a
torque.

[Michael Moroney]

See my and Bodkin's earlier responses. Particularly Odd's cars/bungee cord example.
Off center encounters in a system can provide angular momentum to components
of the system.

[john]

So however the energy came about,
the RESULT is angular momentum.
The "where did the energy/torque come
from" is moot?

[Odd Bodkin]

John, please read my example again.
The point, should I need to hammer it in, is that freshman physics
students know that two cars traveling IN STRAIGHT LINES in opposite
lanes of a highway ALREADY HAVE angular momentum, even though there is
no circular rotation.

The addition of the bungee cord to produce the circular rotation does
NOT change the angular momentum. It's the same after as it was before.
Another way of saying this is that the bungee applied no torque.

The same thing is true for gas clouds in galactic formation. Two gas
clouds approaching each other in STRAIGHT LINE travel already have
angular momentum. When they start to apply forces to each other
gravitationally, this will introduce rotation but does not change the
angular momentum. That is, no new angular momentum is produced when the
gas clouds start to rotate circularly.

[Michael Moroney]

Not moot but already explained.

But the important point is that a rotating galaxy needed to get angular momentum
ONCE and then has it forever with no need for additional torques or anything to
change it or keep it rotating. A precessing anything needs a CONSTANT application
of a torque to CONSTANTLY change its angular momentum. A non-starter.

[Double-A]

On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 9:25:56 PM UTC-7, john wrote:
> 1. Galaxies are precessing. Not only are
> they precessing, but they are doing so
> TWICE as fast as they are rotating.
>
> Just ONE of the observations that
> bear this out is here, in
> Wikipedia, at
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_curve
>

> "The rotation curves of spiral galaxies are asymmetric. The observational data from each side of a galaxy are generally averaged. Rotation curve asymmetry appears to be normal rather than exceptional.[2]"
>
> Precession of the disc is why this is.
>
> 2 Galaxies are made from antimatter arms
> and matter arms, as equally-proportioned
> as possible.
> No citation- oh yeah, me.

There are no galaxies within the atom.

Double-A

[brandon...@gmail.com]

sounds pre-alfvenic waveform;
plasma is 99.99 hundredths of every thing, so that
gravity is just a precessionary (perhaps) effect

[john]

The only way for stuff in atoms and
galaxies to NOT run out of energy
is for everything to run the
shortest possible repeating
pathways.
This is accomplished with the
1 rotation/2 precession standing
wave.
The torque that Michael and Odd are
so worried about only needs to
happen once- to both rotate and
precess- after which you have
a standing wave that feeds on itself
and is extremely permanent- an atom.

Analyze the star spectra with disc
precession in mind, and see what the
computer thinks

[Michael Moroney]

john <johnse...@gmail.com> writes:

>The only way for stuff in atoms and
>galaxies to NOT run out of energy
>is for everything to run the
>shortest possible repeating
>pathways.

No. You don't NEED energy for something moving in a straight line
to keep moving in a straight line.

You don't NEED energy for something rotating to continue rotating.
Like a planet rotating or one orbiting its star.

>The torque that Michael and Odd are
>so worried about only needs to
>happen once- to both rotate and
>precess- after which you have
>a standing wave that feeds on itself
>and is extremely permanent- an atom.

Nope. No amount of whining "My spinny things don't need to obey the laws
of physics!" will change the fact that a precessing spinny thing needs
a constant application of a varying torque in order to continue to move
that way.

Learn some simple physics. Subcategory rotational motion.

>Analyze the star spectra with disc
>precession in mind, and see what the
>computer thinks

...and we will find that the only use for precession is feeding your
ravenous OCD.

[HVAC]

john

The only way for stuff in atoms and
galaxies to NOT run out of energy

-------

Energy doesn't run out. Ever

[Odd Bodkin]

On 7/29/2016 9:37 PM, john wrote:
> The only way for stuff in atoms and
> galaxies to NOT run out of energy
> is for everything to run the
> shortest possible repeating
> pathways.

That's an interesting law you just made up.
Care to offer an argument for this law you just made up?

> This is accomplished with the
> 1 rotation/2 precession standing
> wave.
> The torque that Michael and Odd are
> so worried about only needs to
> happen once- to both rotate and
> precess-

That is an incorrect statement. Remove the torque from a precessing
system and it will stop precessing. This is something you can do in your
garage.

> after which you have
> a standing wave that feeds on itself
> and is extremely permanent- an atom.
>
> Analyze the star spectra with disc
> precession in mind, and see what the
> computer thinks
>

[Odd Bodkin]

On 7/29/2016 9:37 PM, john wrote:

I think it's fascinating how you, John, believe it is better to have an
original thought about physics that flies in the face of all known laws
of physics, than it is to have an original thought that is consistent
with the laws of physics. To you, apparently, even FAMILIARITY with
those laws of physics is an encumbrance and a hindrance to creative
thought, and so should be avoided.

After all, without consideration or even knowledge of any laws of
physics, one could solve all the world's problems with original ideas
about antigravity drives, perpetual motion machines, spontaneous
production of electric charge, precognition, infinitely rigid materials,
and alchemy. And who should stand in the path of that!?

[Odd Bodkin]

As a matter of interest, John, I believe you have been estimated to rank
highly with a value of 1.22 Megadingles.

[benj]

And the way you know this is? Oh yeah, your "superpowers".

Must be wonderful to be a superhero.

[Michael Moroney]

Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> writes:

>On 7/30/2016 12:54 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 7/29/2016 9:37 PM, john wrote:

>>> The torque that Michael and Odd are
>>> so worried about only needs to
>>> happen once- to both rotate and
>>> precess- after which you have
>>> a standing wave that feeds on itself
>>> and is extremely permanent- an atom.

So John, you are so obsessed with your precessing spinny things that you
now feel the need to invent new laws of physics that would allow them to
exist?

Don't you think it's better to talk to your doctor instead?

>As a matter of interest, John, I believe you have been estimated to rank
>highly with a value of 1.22 Megadingles.

Megadingle...as a measure of the crackedness of one's pot...that's good.
Named for the original anti-relativity crank.

But we still need an "einstein" unit. Preferably for something that would
drive anti-relativity cranks nuts, like if they used "einstein" instead
of gamma in length contraction equations. Or something that gets used
all the time, for example if they replaced "volt" with "einstein" so
people would talk of a 12 einstein car battery...

[john]

Hey 'tards-
At least I don't believe
in "dark matter" conveniently
secreted wherever it's needed!!
Describe your "dark matter". Can it fly?

[Odd Bodkin]

On 8/1/2016 8:26 AM, john wrote:
> Hey 'tards-
> At least I don't believe

According to John, ANYTHING is better than believing in dark matter.
Why believe in something new that's never been seen before, when you can
believe in JOHN'S something new that's never been seen before AND which
violates known physical laws??

> in "dark matter" conveniently
> secreted wherever it's needed!!

Remember when neutrinos were things that had never been detected before,
and were hypothesized to exist to conveniently preserve energy
conservation and angular momentum conservation? And then they turned out
to be really there!

So consider the possibility, John, that the dark matter hypothesis is
like where the neutrino hypothesis was 50 years ago.

> Describe your "dark matter". Can it fly?
>

[Michael Moroney]

john <johnse...@gmail.com> tarded:

>Hey 'tards-

Talking to yourself? And a mouse in your pocket?

>At least I don't believe
>in "dark matter" conveniently
>secreted wherever it's needed!!

Still haven't found a five year old to explain "invisible heavy stuff" to you yet?

>Describe your "dark matter". Can it fly?

It interacts gravitationally. It does not interact electromagnetically.
In other words, "invisible heavy stuff". That's about all we know about it.

[noTthaTguY]

it appears to be an element of EinsteinmaniA,
the old idea that gravity is principle force, but
I think that Alfven put that away, in the 'nine-sixties

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

Mr. hVac wrote:
> Energy doesn't run out. Ever

The _quality_ of energy degrades, spontaneously,
per the _second_ law of Thermodynamics.

"eXergy" ( energy that can do work ) is diminishing.

Google "Heat Death of the Universe" and Google says: ＜＜

  The heat death of the universe is a historically 
  suggested theory of the ultimate fate of the universe 
  in which the universe has diminished to a state of no 
  thermodynamic free energy and therefore can no longer 
  sustain processes that _consume_ energy 
  ( including computation and life ).  ＞＞

[HVAC]

Jeff-Relf.Me

-----------

[john]

Michael and Odd
We're trying to figure out MATTER,
you 'tards!
So, how does speculating on an invisible,
new kind of matter help
to do that, you tards?
It's a huge step backward,
you tards!!
Just admit that galactic
rotation curves killed suck gravity,
for cripes sakes.

[Michael Moroney]

john <johnse...@gmail.com> tarded:

>Michael and Odd
>We're trying to figure out MATTER,
>you 'tards!

I believe I know what matter is.

>So, how does speculating on an invisible,
>new kind of matter help
>to do that, you tards?

Ummm, because invisible heavy stuff works a hell of a lot better than
spinny things that violate the laws of physics?

Hmm, so you haven't found a 5 year old yet. You have trouble with
"invisible heavy stuff". So John, maybe you don't believe in
"invisible"? Do you believe in air?

Or maybe you have trouble with "heavy". Do you believe in lead?

>It's a huge step backward,
>you tards!!

Yes, believing that galaxies and atoms are precessing spinny things sure
would be a step backwards. Fortunately, only you believe in that crap.

>Just admit that galactic
>rotation curves killed suck gravity,
>for cripes sakes.

Just admit LeSage gravitation died a couple of centuries ago.

[john]

Speculating that a WHOLE NEW CLASS
of matter exists,
composed of NOT FERMIONS OR BARYONS
in order to explain one particular
aspect of our matter,
is what's retarded.
Tard

[benj]

Energy doesn't run out because God is constantly supplying it! :-)

HVAC doesn't believe in God so he believes that for ghosts to have
persistence of consciousness, energy must never run out...ever! He is a
man of such faith!

[Odd Bodkin]

On 8/5/2016 2:19 PM, john wrote:
> Just admit that galactic
> rotation curves killed suck gravity,
> for cripes sakes.

Did logic and common sense tell you that suck electrostatics is dead?
Is a balloon clinging to hair by static electricity dead?

[HVAC]

BJ quacked

Energy doesn't run out because God is constantly supplying it! :-)

------------

I don't believe in God as do you. You posit an invisible man who supplies us as if we were fish in a bowl. I disagree.

HVAC doesn't believe in God so he believes that for ghosts to have
persistence of consciousness, energy must never run out...ever!

--------

I don't believe in ghosts as do you. If ghosts existed, as you believe, the entire physical nature of the universe would be upended. You may be convinced but no one in the field of science... Any science, agrees with you. You're alone. You're the crazy rat running around in the shithouse.

Right right?

[Odd Bodkin]

Why is that retarded?
Remember that at the turn of the century, only protons and electrons
were known.

The idea of a neutral particle in the atom made no sense. Hence neutrons
were a completely different class of particle. Was proposing a neutron
retarded? Why or why not?

Then there was the neutrino, a particle that was neutral but didn't seem
to interact much at all, completely unlike nucleons or electrons, which
were the only classes of particles known at the time. Was proposing a
neutrino retarded? Why or why not?

Then there were pions, which were lighter than nucleons but heavier than
electrons, which were proposed to explain what held the neutrons in the
nucleus, completely unlike electrons, nucleons, or neutrinos. Was
proposing a pion retarded? Why or why not?

Then there were muons, which were middle weight but not pions, and
seemed to be just like electrons but just an older sister. No reason to
think there was duplication of particles like electrons. Was proposing a
muon retarded? Why or why not?

Explain to me why those new classes of things are not retarded, but this
new class of things is.

John, if you're going to have a thought on a matter, at least be
CONSISTENT in your thinking and not just a jumbled mess.

[john]

Off beat said

"Explain to me why those new classes of things are not retarded, but this
new class of things is.

John, if you're going to have a thought on a matter, at least be
CONSISTENT in your thinking and not just a jumbled mess"

You seem not to be able to distinguish
between new members of a class
and a whole new class.
That's okay- I'm used to your fractured thought.

I CONSISTENTLY say that DM is BS.

Why would you reject the
fractal notion that matter might
have underlying structure that has the
same form as it does? Like Russian
Dolls? Does logicity assend you, lil
pucker?

[benj]

Folks, one more fine example what what HVAC calls an "education in
science". To him the only "science" he knows is making fun of "god" and
pretending other people believe in ghosts. He wants so deperately to be
loved and admired but there is even less than Reber gets. HVAC is the
gay loser.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 8/5/2016 5:28 PM, john wrote:
> Off beat said
>
> "Explain to me why those new classes of things are not retarded, but this
> new class of things is.
>
> John, if you're going to have a thought on a matter, at least be
> CONSISTENT in your thinking and not just a jumbled mess"
>
> You seem not to be able to distinguish
> between new members of a class
> and a whole new class.

Neutrons where new members of WHAT CLASS in 1930? Hmmm?

Neutrinos were new members of WHAT CLASS in 1930? Hmmm?

In both cases, the ONLY CLASSES of particles known were protons and
electrons, and beta, alpha, and gamma radiations.

So what classes of things did neutrons and neutrinos fall into?

Try to think consistently and coherently. Go ahead. Try.

[Michael Moroney]

john <johnse...@gmail.com> tarded:

>Speculating that a WHOLE NEW CLASS
>of matter exists,
>composed of NOT FERMIONS OR BARYONS

So you don't believe in the photon? I suppose you don't believe in the
pion or other mesons, the W, Z or gluons. All of those are neither
fermions nor baryons.

>in order to explain one particular
>aspect of our matter,
>is what's retarded.
>Tard

Wait a minute. YOU are the one who believes there are stars inside
electrons?? And you call ME "tard"!?!??!?!?!?!?!

[Michael Moroney]

john <johnse...@gmail.com> tarded:

>You seem not to be able to distinguish
>between new members of a class
>and a whole new class.
>That's okay- I'm used to your fractured thought.

Waitaminute again! You complain about Odd believing in a whole new class
of something (like neutrons and neutrinos were once), yet you want to
create an entire new class of stuff at a lower fractal level? And another
below that? And another, on to infinity?? You don't see the hypocrisy of
that?????

>Why would you reject the
>fractal notion that matter might
>have underlying structure that has the
>same form as it does? Like Russian
>Dolls?

Because it is so freakin' retarded!

[john]

Michael
Wake up.
DM is retarded.
BH by grav "collapse" is retarded.
Galactic rotation curves falsified YOUR
physics a long time ago.
You are just too stubborn to admit it.

[Michael Moroney]

john <johnse...@gmail.com> tarded:

>Michael
>Wake up.
>DM is retarded.

Not as retarded as precessing spinny things!

>BH by grav "collapse" is retarded.

Not as retarded as your LeSage Gravity!

>Galactic rotation curves falsified YOUR
>physics a long time ago.

Speaking of "a long time ago", your LeSage Gravity has been known to be a
failure for a couple of centuries!

>You are just too stubborn to admit it.

Sounds more like you.


So when are you going to give me an answer how your retarded spinny thing
galaxies don't violate half of the laws of physics?

[john]

Mickey

"So when are you going to give me an answer how your retarded spinny thing
galaxies don't violate half of the laws of physics? "

Galactic rotation curves FALSIFIED the "law"
of gravity.
How many other "laws of physics"
are just plain wrong?

The galaxy is at the Center of a spherical
Bi-layered halo of old globular clusters-
one layer flowing one way and
the second flowing another.

How do your "laws" explain that?
You don't have a sniff, you poor little mutt.

[john]

The double-layered spherical halo of old
globular stars, moving in different directions,
is caused by precession of the spinning
disc.
Every second time the disc comes through,
the edge is going the opposite way, since
the precession is twice the rotation, and
these globular clusters are coming off
the ends of the arms.
(See Benzene:
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/BenzeneE.GIF )

[john]

Galactic rotation curves are different
on opposite sides of the disc. The curve
used is always an average of the two.
Why do the stars appear to be going
different speeds on different sides of
the disc? Because one side is coming
towards you, and the other is receding;
the disc is precessing.

[john]

Something like 85% of spiral galaxies
that can be seen well-enough have
opposite warping on the edge of
their disc- like a sombrero with one edge
bent up and the opposite bent down.
Cause? Precession.

[Michael Moroney]

You really really need to talk to a doctor about this precession OCD
or whatever it really is.

Seriously. I mean it.

[HVAC]

Michael Moroney
- show quoted text -

You really really need to talk to a doctor about this precession OCD
or whatever it really is.

Seriously. I mean it.

-----------

John has obviously been prescribing his own medications.

[Michael Moroney]

john <johnse...@gmail.com> tarded:

>Mickey
>"So when are you going to give me an answer how your retarded spinny thing
>galaxies don't violate half of the laws of physics? "
>Galactic rotation curves FALSIFIED the "law"
>of gravity.

Nope. It works just fine once we realize there is matter there that we
cannot otherwise detect.

>How many other "laws of physics"
>are just plain wrong?

Scientists are constantly testing the "laws of physics". They very rarely
succeed. These laws are well established and so much of what we use daily
are based on them.

>The galaxy is at the Center of a spherical
>Bi-layered halo of old globular clusters-
>one layer flowing one way and
>the second flowing another.

Nope. Globular clusters are in elongated orbits at various angles with
respect to the galactic plane.

>How do your "laws" explain that?

Since what you claimed is false, there is nothing to explain. Other than
why do you allow your OCD to rule your life like that.

[Michael Moroney]

Little Pharma!

[john]

Mickey
Yep. Spherical double- layered halo.
With different flows.

[Michael Moroney]

Nope, the orbital planes of the clusters are essentially at random, other
than near the plane of the galaxy disk itself, because of its influence.

But go ahead and believe your spinny thing fantasy, as your OCD rages
out of control.

[john]

Hey, Mickey, you're so fine

http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/astronomers-discover-dizzying-spin-of-the-milky-way-galaxy-s-halo

"Astronomers at the University of Michigan’s College of Literature, Science, and the Arts (LSA) discovered for the first time that the hot gas in the halo of the Milky Way galaxy is spinning in the same direction and at comparable speed as the galaxy's disk, which contains our stars, planets, gas, and dust"

[john]

Hey, Mickey, you're so fine

You're so fine you blow my mind.

No, Michael.
I've said it before.
The whole galaxy is like a whirlpool-
everything is carried along.

[Michael Moroney]

john <johnse...@gmail.com> writes:

>Hey, Mickey, you're so fine

>http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/astronomers-discover-dizzying-spin=
>-of-the-milky-way-galaxy-s-halo=20

>"Astronomers at the University of Michigan=E2=80=99s College of Literature,=
> Science, and the Arts (LSA) discovered for the first time that the hot gas=
> in the halo of the Milky Way galaxy is spinning in the same direction and =
>at comparable speed as the galaxy's disk, which contains our stars, planets=
>, gas, and dust"

Moved the goalposts, I see. We were discussing globular clusters, not gas.

Also nothing about counterrotating whatever.

And from: http://calgary.rasc.ca/globulars.htm

"Question: What is a "Globular Cluster"

Answer: A globular cluster is an independent collection of many stars
(usually in a spherical shape) which orbits a galaxy. The orbit of the
globular is not always aligned with the "plane" of the galaxy, and may be
at almost any angle and at any large distance from the centre of the
galaxy. The distance is usually measured in light years or kiloparsecs."

A quick search found about a half dozen sites with similar descriptions.

[john]

Mickey
We were discussing the halo.
It rotates WITH the disc.
AT THE SAME RATE.
NEW observation- this summer.

Don't like spinny things?
That's what atoms and galaxies ARE.

Tard

[john]

Btw, Michael and Odd
This shows that a galaxy turns
AS A UNIT.
Yes, Odd, it DOES have a rotation.
Suck it up

[Odd Bodkin]

On 8/7/2016 8:45 AM, john wrote:
> Btw, Michael and Odd
> This shows that a galaxy turns
> AS A UNIT.

You seem to have lost track of your own claims.
You said that anomalous galactic rotation rates differ from one side of
the galaxy to the other. Which means that galaxies cannot be turning as
a unit. Now you say they are turning as a unit.

By the way, John, what about the galaxies that don't turn?

> Yes, Odd, it DOES have a rotation.
> Suck it up
>

[john]

Odd tarded

"You seem to have lost track of your own claims.
You said that anomalous galactic rotation rates differ from one side of
the galaxy to the other. Which means that galaxies cannot be turning as
a unit. Now you say they are turning as a unit. "

You say they don't.
This latest observation says they do.
You are proven wrong.

Anomalous galactic
rotation rates- I SAID- are because the
TURNING DISC UNIT is also precessing.
Which means one side of the TURNING
DISC UNIT is always approaching while
the other side of the TURNING DISC UNIT
is receding.
Look up any words that you are unfamiliar
with in a DICTIONARY, Odd.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 8/7/2016 10:05 AM, john wrote:
> Odd tarded
>
> "You seem to have lost track of your own claims.
> You said that anomalous galactic rotation rates differ from one side of
> the galaxy to the other. Which means that galaxies cannot be turning as
> a unit. Now you say they are turning as a unit. "
>
> You say they don't.
> This latest observation says they do.
> You are proven wrong.
>
> Anomalous galactic
> rotation rates- I SAID- are because the
> TURNING DISC UNIT is also precessing.
> Which means one side of the TURNING
> DISC UNIT is always approaching while
> the other side of the TURNING DISC UNIT
> is receding.

This wouldn't change the rotation rate around the center of the galaxy.
Pay attention.

> Look up any words that you are unfamiliar
> with in a DICTIONARY, Odd.
>

[john]

Odd
I'm finding that you are
just too stupid to talk to.
Sorry.
For you.
Don't be mad

[Michael Moroney]

john <johnse...@gmail.com> tarded:

>Mickey
>We were discussing the halo.

Wrong. You explicitly mentioned globular clusters, in
Message-ID: <cb859f33-1025-43a0...@googlegroups.com>

: The galaxy is at the Center of a spherical

: Bi-layered halo of old globular clusters-
: one layer flowing one way and
: the second flowing another.

: How do your "laws" explain that?

And you mentioned the bi-layered globular clusters in another reply
as well. Should I rub your nose in that as well?

I pointed out that globular clusters do not orbit in any bi-layers,
they orbit in their own randomly aligned orbits. Proving your claim
wrong.

Quit moving the goal posts.

[Michael Moroney]

Which is wrong, of course. The stars move into and out of the arms as
they orbit the center. It resembles a standing wave more than anything
else.

[john]

Mickey
They said everything moves the same
way at the same rate.
Yes, stars move around in there.
Bees move around in a beehive, too,
but it can certainly be given spin.

You guys are in SUCH denial

[Michael Moroney]

john <johnse...@gmail.com> writes:

>Mickey
>They

Who?

> said everything moves the same
>way at the same rate.

Yes galactic rotation curves typically have stars all moving at the same
speed regardless of their distance, beyond a certain distance. That does
NOT mean it rotates as a solid unit since a star twice as far from the
center as a second star moves at the same speed as the second star, but
takes twice as long to go around, since it travels twice the distance.

>Yes, stars move around in there.
>Bees move around in a beehive, too,
>but it can certainly be given spin.

Yeah, so what?

>You guys are in SUCH denial

Denial of what?

YOU are in denial of your own OCD.

[john]

Mickey said
"Who?"
Mickey can't remember things.
Here, Mickey- I c+p ed this from
just up above:

"Astronomers at the University of Michigan’s College of Literature, Science, and the Arts (LSA) discovered for the first time that the hot gas in the halo of the Milky Way galaxy is spinning in the same direction and at comparable speed as the galaxy's disk, which contains our stars, planets, gas, and dust"

That's who

[Michael Moroney]

john <johnse...@gmail.com> writes:

>Mickey said
>"Who?"
>Mickey can't remember things.

You never quote what you are responding to.
I just see these zero context quotes from you.

>Here, Mickey- I c+p ed this from
>just up above:

Just up above what? I don't use the same newsreader you do so "just up
above" has zero meaning. It's like Archie Pu's "front page hog" rants.
I don't use Giggle Groups so I don't have any such thing as a "front
page hog" as I don't have a front page to hog.

Anyway, the globular clusters don't orbit in counter-rotating shells
like you claimed, before you moved the goalposts to the gas rotating in
one single direction.

[john]

Michael said

"Anyway, the globular clusters don't orbit in counter-rotating shells
like you claimed, before you moved the goalposts to the gas rotating in
one single direction. "

There is more than one population of
globular clusters.

[john]

http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/astronomers-discover-dizzying-spin-of-the-milky-way-galaxy-s-halo

"Astronomers at the University of Michigan’s College of Literature, Science, and the Arts (LSA) discovered for the first time that the hot gas in the halo of the Milky Way galaxy is spinning in the same direction and at comparable speed as the galaxy's disk, which contains our stars, planets, gas, and dust"

Proving that a galaxy turns AS A UNIT.
Proving that those who have
been saying otherwise are FOS.
Proving that DM is nonsense.

[Michael Moroney]

Sorry, no. That refers to all the globular clusters of the Milky Way that
we can see from Earth.

[Odd Bodkin]

I'm not mad. Nor do I really care about your assessment of my mental
abilities. Do as you wish, as you always have.

[Michael Moroney]

Because of the conservation of angular momentum, and assuming the Milky
Way formed from this cloud in the first place, I would _expect_ the gas
to have similar rotation to the Milky Way.

john <johnse...@gmail.com> tarded:

>Proving that a galaxy turns AS A UNIT.

Nope, it does not say that, they give different speeds.

>Proving that those who have
>been saying otherwise are FOS.

Does not follow.

>Proving that DM is nonsense.

Did you notice that the article gives support for dark matter?

[Odd Bodkin]

So you can't read.

I'll explain what this sentence means.
At the position of the Sun, which is about 2/3 of the way out, the time
for one complete revolution of the stars at that radius is 240 million
years. But nearer the center, where the bar is (the Milky Way is a
barred spiral galaxy), the time for one complete revolution is 110
million years. Further out to the edges, the time for one complete
revolution is 360 million years. So CLEARLY the galaxy is not rotating
as a unit.

What the sentence in the article you quoted is saying is that the region
of the halo that has about the same radius as the bar of the Milky Way
also takes 110 million years to revolve. The region of the halo that is
at distances about that of the sun is revolving once every 240 million
years.

So the halo is in synch with the Milky Way, though the whole Milky Way
does not revolve as a unit.

You keep telling people to pull their heads out of their asses, but
John, what you are spouting off is due to the fact that you do not read
much and you can't understand even the short things you do read.

[john]

Odd
Pretty soon your back will be to the wall.

[benj]

On 8/6/2016 7:09 PM, HVAC wrote:
> Michael Moroney
> - show quoted text -
> You really really need to talk to a doctor about this precession OCD
> or whatever it really is.
>
> Seriously. I mean it.
> -----------
>
> John has obviously been prescribing his own medications.
>

Hardblow needs no medication. He is SURE that he is sane and everyone
else is nuts.

[john]

Benj
I think HVAC is on PTSD meds.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 8/8/2016 4:47 PM, john wrote:
> Odd
> Pretty soon your back will be to the wall.
>

How so, John? So far, all you've demonstrated is that you can't read.
Not only are you oblivious to all the data that shows the galaxy does
not rotate as a unit, but you MISINTERPRET a sound bite from a press
article about a scientific finding to mean that it does show the galaxy
moves as a unit (as though all that data to the contrary did not exist).

So, how does the near term future play out in your head, John?

That all of a sudden, scientists will say, "All of our data about the
Milky Way was WRONG! New findings show it rotates as a unified disc and
precesses to boot!"?

[benj]

On 8/8/2016 5:47 PM, john wrote:
> Odd
> Pretty soon your back will be to the wall.
>

His back is always to the wall. He loves showing his "manhood" by taking
on multiple "kooks" at once and arguing them all into submission with
his clever debating techniques.

[noTthaTguY]

that is really fairly simple, viz-a-vu plasma