A River Model of Space

[Alan Folmsbee]

This paper by Braeck and Gron is free to read...

https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.0419

a gravity model using a liquid-like Space. It says
the relativistic effects are accurately mimicked
with a River of Space flowing into stars.
"A River Model of Space" (2012)
It has algebra...

[Chris M. Thomasson]

Thank you! Will read. Imvho, sounds just a little like a 3d vector field.

Fwiw, here are some of my very hyper crude online examples of such a thing:

http://funwithfractals.atspace.cc/ct_gfield_test/ct_3dgfield_anime_test

http://funwithfractals.atspace.cc/ct_gfield_test/3d_user/ct_wormhole_exp.html

http://funwithfractals.atspace.cc/ct_gfield_test/3d_user


Here is an interesting 2d vector field:

http://funwithfractals.atspace.cc/ct_gf_explore/ct_alien_ship.html

[Double-A]

The River Model works well for black holes too.

https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0411060

Like I have long said, "Go with the flow!"

Double-A

[pora...@gmail.com]

========================
now my genius smarty's
nature is not built from nice words !!***
even not with poetic words!!***
it works with its action means and /ability
so listen carefully once again :
action is done with ACTION TOOLS **
NOT WITH NICE WORDS

IF THE ACTION ABILITY OF SPACE
to do any ting IS
L^3
it can do with it what ???!!
big zero !!!!
=
the dimensions of
force is
Kilogram meter /sec ^2

the dimensions of momentum is
KILOGRAM *** METER /SECOND

if so dear fellows
what can your idiotic space do
with your L^3 alone ???!!!!

we are not in poetry
we are sci PHISICS !! PHISICS !!!!!
so
==============================================================

MASS !!!! (KILOGRAM*** DIMESION ) AGAIN KILOGRAM!! IS THE 'MOTHER' OF ALL FORCES
OF ALL !! AGAINALL )FROCES --INCLDING GRAVITY !!!!!
=================================================================

together, of course, indeed with space
plus with Seconds( that denote motion in space)(
IE
ALL OF IT TOGETHER !!
no curved space
and no shmeved space

2
=============================
No mass'' no real physics !!!!!
================================
there are in nature some very basic mass sub particles-

- THAT MOVE NATURALLT (NATURALLY) !! IN CURVED LINES !!
you can see it quite **tangible**
in Faraday permanent magnet experiment!
==========
so
from now from now on
you name it what ever you like-
BUT NOT JUST (POOR ) MISERABLE magic fairy lady ---'''SPACE....

*just like parrots- because **Einstein said it***

he got his reputation and place in history of physics
because of *** other things *** like E= M c^2 . photoelectric phenomenon etc etc
==========
TIA
Eng
Y.Porat
==============================.

[Arindam Banerjee]

Relativistic effects happen as the speed of light is
1. varying with the speed of the emitter
2. the Earth is moving in space.

Once these two facts are clearly understood, the universe is literally straightened out.

It is found to be infinite, as it increases its size to our measurement apparatus in proportion to the power of such apparatus (telescopes).

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
c(V)=c+V, or the speed of light varies with the speed of the emitter
e=0.5mVVN(N-k), or, energy is always getting created and destroyed on a kinetic basis.

[pora...@gmail.com]

===============
''energy is created and destroyed ??''!!
what about the
***conservation of energy***
rule/basic law of physics ??
===
Y.Porat
=======================

[john]

The Fractal radiation given off by electrons as they ACCELERATE around the nucleus is just like the larger-gauge radiation given off by stars as they accelerate around their galactic centres.
It is composed of photons and neutrinos at the next level down, and is absorbed by PROTONS. The minineutrinos are particles and cause our gravity.
Absorption of stars' neutrinos by GALACTIC centres drives galaxies apart.

So, yes, energy is flowing INTO protons and galactic centres all the time. And OUT OF stars and electrons ALL THE TIME, FOREVER.

Eternal cycle.

[Double-A]

You sound like a 19th century materialist physicist, saying that the universe is just a game of marbles being played by blind men!

Double-A

[pora...@gmail.com]

============================
moreover !!
electrons do not run around the nucleus !!
==
Y.P
========================

[john]

prorat

"
electrons do not run around the nucleus !!
"

And the Earth is flat- right?
You and Odd!! HE claims that electrons don't move.

Odd, you and pro-rat should get together- or, no- you stole his manuscript or something back when you were PD, so, no.
Hey, odd, maybe get a sex-change and you can be an Oddess!!
Hahahahahahahaha

[Arindam Banerjee]

Yes with wohls on. The stars create energy out of their gravity and kinetic gas collisions. That energy is dissipated in the universe and is found as background radiation.

> what about the
> ***conservation of energy***
> rule/basic law of physics ??

It is correct in certain circumstances involving mechanical devices.
It took a beating with the discovery of radioactivity.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
> ===
> Y.Porat
> =======================

[reber G=emc^2]

I think the idea is wet between the ears.Lots of reasons why Bert

[Odd Bodkin]

john <johnse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> prorat
> "
> electrons do not run around the nucleus !!
> "
> And the Earth is flat- right?
> You and Odd!! HE claims that electrons don't move.

I’ve corrected you four times in the last two days about what I say.
Now STOP LYING about what I say!

>
> Odd, you and pro-rat should get together- or, no- you stole his
> manuscript or something back when you were PD, so, no.

What manuscript?

> Hey, odd, maybe get a sex-change and you can be an Oddess!!
> Hahahahahahahaha
>

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

[john]

Odd

"
> You and Odd!! HE claims that electrons don't move.

I’ve corrected you four times in the last two days about what I say.
Now STOP LYING about what I say!
"

You say electrons dont move.
You said it lots.

[Odd Bodkin]

I said electrons don’t have trajectories. I’ve also said the DO have
kinetic energy, which is the energy of motion. Get it straight what I said.

[hanson]

"reber G=EMC^2"<herbert...@gmail.com> said that
Bert "is wet between the ears.Lots of reasons why Bert
"I park & bark in the dark. I'm a stupid shit and full of it." Bert."
"I am a first class low wit bigot. Sad and so true. Bert"
>
"Why am I posting this, it's making me cry as it always does".Bert
>
______ "Why am I not loved by all?". Bert.
>

>
>
>
hmmm...<snicker>...<chortle>...ahahahAHAHA...ROTFLMAO>
>
PS:
SwineBert Glazier's daily Sanctimony and his
phony idiotic posts, are very different from
<http://tinyurl.com/Swine-Glazier-s-REAL-intent> [J]
who brags to be a Marxist Jewish Supremacist &
<http://tinyurl.com/The-Chosen-Graveyard-Vandal> [J]
who knows how everything works, which is 1st &
foremost Bert's habit to shit into peoples' mouths, &
to see them being murdered so that Glazier can be
a criminal graveyard vandal & piss onto their graves.
Read it in Jewpig Glazier's own words in link [J]

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Wednesday, 18 April 2018 06:23:36 UTC+10, john wrote:
> The Fractal radiation given off by electrons as they ACCELERATE around the nucleus

Electrons can only accelerate and decelerate around the nucleus when they are hit by another atom, or electromagnetic wave motion (varying electric fields cause change to their normal trajectories).

In their normal motion around the nucleus they do not emit radiation.

> is just like the larger-gauge radiation given off by stars as they accelerate around their galactic centres.

Stars radiate as the component atoms emit radiation when the atoms hit each other, causing changes to the electronic orbits, making them radiating antennas.

> It is composed of photons and neutrinos at the next level down, and is absorbed by PROTONS. The minineutrinos are particles and cause our gravity.

Gravity is caused entirely by mass, where mass is defined as what is moved by force, and force as defined by da Vinci is a spiritual entity. Photons, neutrinos, minineutrinos, quarks, bosons, etc. have as much physical reality as the Harry Potter entities.

> Absorption of stars' neutrinos by GALACTIC centres drives galaxies apart.
>
> So, yes, energy is flowing INTO protons and galactic centres all the time. And OUT OF stars and electrons ALL THE TIME, FOREVER.

Energy is flowing from the radiating atoms into the infinite universe and dissipating into background radiation noise.

>
> Eternal cycle.

Yes, this is an eternal cycle and we will be very well off without inserting the Harry Potter elements in physics caused by the e=mcc=hv nonsenses.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[john]

Odd

"
I said electrons don’t have trajectories. I’ve also said the DO have
kinetic energy, which is the energy of motion. Get it straight what I said. "

So, they move but don't go anywhere?
You're STILL an idiot, Odd.

[pora...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 3:43:45 AM UTC+3, john wrote:
> prorat
> "
> electrons do not run around the nucleus !!
> "
> And the Earth is flat- right?

==================
Hi John
did I say that earth is flat ???!!!
I think that I am the last man in that universe
that would say something that that earth is flat!!

that is how you know and understand me ????
so again
just stick it properly :
electrons ***do not***!!! rotate around the nuc
the **vibrate**like strings
**a chain of sub orbitals **!!
and if you forgot I will remind you :

http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract

** !!!
it is an **abstract**!!! of a book of 150 dense information and INNOVATION !!!

I an not a parrot as odd !!!
nothing to compare us
=================
TIA
Y.Porat
===========================

[Odd Bodkin]

john <johnse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Odd
> "
> I said electrons don’t have trajectories. I’ve also said the DO have
> kinetic energy, which is the energy of motion. Get it straight what I said. "
>
> So, they move but don't go anywhere?

Stop putting words in my mouth. You’re going to be quoting Yourself rather
than me for weeks to come.
You’re the one stuck with the old school blinders that insists that kinetic
energy MUST be associated with a trajectory for anything to make sense.
Because you can’t crawl out of your tiny mental box, fur-lined and cozy
though it may be.

> You're STILL an idiot, Odd.
>

[john]

Odd
“kinetic energy, which is the energy of motion. Get it straight what I said. "

>
> So, they move but don't go anywhere?

Stop putting words in my mouth. You’re going to be quoting Yourself rather
than me for weeks to come.
You’re the one stuck with the old school blinders that insists that kinetic
energy MUST be associated with a trajectory for anything to make sense.

Because you can’t crawl out of your tiny mental box, fur-lined and cozy ”

You are STILL an idiot, Odd.

I suggest you read what Bohr and Thompson and other early pioneers observed. Read their biographies- you say you can read- and while you’re at it, find which one observed that electrons SLOW DOWN at each end of their orbital.

See how your “no trajectory “ BULLSHIT squares with what some REAL SCIENTISTS observed. Then go polish a table

[Odd Bodkin]

john <johnse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Odd
> “kinetic energy, which is the energy of motion. Get it straight what I said. "
>>
>> So, they move but don't go anywhere?
>
> Stop putting words in my mouth. You’re going to be quoting Yourself rather
> than me for weeks to come.
> You’re the one stuck with the old school blinders that insists that kinetic
> energy MUST be associated with a trajectory for anything to make sense.
> Because you can’t crawl out of your tiny mental box, fur-lined and cozy ”
>
> You are STILL an idiot, Odd.
>
> I suggest you read what Bohr and Thompson and other early pioneers
> observed. Read their biographies- you say you can read- and while you’re
> at it, find which one observed that electrons SLOW DOWN at each end of their orbital.

Cite?
I’m going with the current understanding, by the way, not something as
understood 90 years ago.

>
> See how your “no trajectory “ BULLSHIT squares with what some REAL
> SCIENTISTS observed. Then go polish a table
>

I am talking about what real scientists say. And I can give a reading
reference. Robinett, Quantum Mechanics, 2006.

You?

[john]

Odd
“am talking about what real scientists say. And I can give a reading

reference. Robinett, Quantum Mechanics, 2006.

You? ”
Bohr and Thompson would have laughed at you and your electrons that don’t move. What? Are they dancing in place? Vibrating? What?

You DO know that it takes 10^-16 seconds for an electron to leave the atom when perturbed?
It must travel 10^-09 meters to do so.
If your little electrons are really marking time, essentially starting from 0 mph, they will have to accelerate to a pretty phenomenal speed to accomplish this, because they would have to ALREADY be doing 10%of c for this to be possible. Starting from zero, they’ll have to accelerate to MUCH more than that. Where would all that energy come from, Odd? The laser beam?

[john]

Odd
“You? ”

Bohr and Thompson would have laughed at you and your electrons that don’t move. What? Are they dancing in place? Vibrating? What?

You DO know that it takes 10^-16 seconds for an electron to leave the atom when perturbed?
It must travel 10^-09 meters to do so.

If your little electrons are really marking time, essentially starting from 0 mph, they will have to accelerate to a pretty phenomenal speed to accomplish this, because they would have to ALREADY be doing 10%of c for this to be possible. Starting from zero, they’ll have to accelerate to MUCH more than that. Where would all that energy come from, Odd? The laser beam? ”

How much energy would it take, Odd, to accelerate an electron from 0 to .2c in 10^-09meters?
I think that proves that electrons must ALREADY be travelling in a TRAJECTORY at that speed.
Pretty much

[pora...@gmail.com]

==========================
in the Atom
electrons do not travel

THEY VIBRATE !!!
2
they might get more velocity AFTER LEAVUNGTHE ATOM !!

and more
keep in mind that their mass is very small !!
and even so
they never get the velocity c
===
TIA
Y.Porat
======================

[Odd Bodkin]

john <johnse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Odd
> “am talking about what real scientists say. And I can give a reading
> reference. Robinett, Quantum Mechanics, 2006.
>
> You? ”
> Bohr and Thompson would have laughed at you and your electrons that don’t
> move. What? Are they dancing in place? Vibrating? What?

You’re pretty cavalier about claiming what dead men would do, especially
since you can’t seem to cite anything they actually said that supports your
contention.

>
> You DO know that it takes 10^-16 seconds for an electron to leave the atom when perturbed?
> It must travel 10^-09 meters to do so.

Yes, sorta.

> If your little electrons are really marking time, essentially starting from 0 mph,

No. Stop. The ONLY person who is saying that the electrons are starting at
rest from some place inside the atom is you. Quantum mechanics says NO SUCH
thing.

Quantum mechanics says that you CANNOT confine an electron inside an atom
and have it be motionless. It will automatically have a minimum kinetic
energy, which is where the speed comes from.

So NO ONE in physics is saying, or has ever said, that electrons start from
zero to a good fraction of c when the atom is ionized. The problem you are
pointing to is imaginary, out of your own I’ll-informed head.

However, contrary to your calcified beliefs, having kinetic energy does NOT
entail having a trajectory. This is where you are broken, John. When
someone tells you that the electron has no trajectory or orbit in the atom,
your first response is to splutter, “well, you must be claiming it’s
stationary then, because those are the only two possibilities I can
visualize.” And when someone tells you those are not the only
possibilities, you start going LALALALALA, can’t hear you, because if it’s
not in my concept set it’s nonsense!”

> they will have to accelerate to a pretty phenomenal speed to accomplish
> this, because they would have to ALREADY be doing 10%of c for this to be
> possible. Starting from zero, they’ll have to accelerate to MUCH more
> than that. Where would all that energy come from, Odd? The laser beam?
>

[john]

Odd
“However, contrary to your calcified beliefs, having kinetic energy does NOT

entail having a trajectory. This is where you are broken, John. When
someone tells you that the electron has no trajectory or orbit in the atom,

your first response is to splutter, “well, you must be claiming it’s ”
What ARE you claiming? That it’s travelling at .1c AT THE SAME TIME as going nowhere?

[Double-A]

Electrons might be found anywhere in the vicinity of their orbital, including in the nucleus.

Double-A

[Odd Bodkin]

I’ve told you what the claim is. That bound electrons in atoms have
positive kinetic energy and they have no trajectories. I know you cannot
mash that triangle peg into either the square hole or the round hole and
those are the only two holes you know.

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[john]

Odd
“atoms have

positive kinetic energy and they have no trajectories. I know you cannot
mash that triangle peg into either the square hole or the round hole and
those are the only two holes you know.

”
It’s the nonsense hole

[pora...@gmail.com]

On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 1:56:41 AM UTC+3, Double-A wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 17, 2018 at 4:38:32 PM UTC-7, pora...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > This paper by Braeck and Gron is free t > > > > >

> > > Double-A
> > ============================
> > moreover !!
> > electrons do not run around the nucleus !!
> > ==
> > Y.P
> > ========================
>
>
> Electrons might be found anywhere in the vicinity of their orbital, including in the nucleus.
>
> Double-A

===============yess
agree that electrons are found in the nucleus itself !!!
for instance in Neurons !!
yet it is not clear to me
what you say
''in vicinity of their orbits ??
TIA
Y.POrat
==================

[Edward Prochak]

John,
you totally do not understand Quantum Mechanics.
And Odd predicted your response precisely!

[Edward Prochak]

On Thursday, April 19, 2018 at 11:29:42 PM UTC-4, john wrote:

> It’s the nonsense hole

That's exactly where you've been living, John.

Ed

[john]

Ed
“That's exactly where you've been living, John.”
QM is what’s nonsense.
It has no predictions.
HUP is being proven wrong as we speak.
Every new observation of BHs brings new surprises.
“Moving but not moving”.
What.
A.
Crock.
And you guys lap that up.

[john]

“River Model”
Energy flows out of electrons and into protons.
Energy flows out of stars and into BHs.
In a cyclical process, that energy is then returned as new stars and new electron Matter.
End of starry.

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

That river floats still...

[Odd Bodkin]

See? Anything foreign or new to you, you call nonsense, even without
checking whether it agrees with data. How small-minded and unscientific.

[john]

Odd
“See? Anything foreign or new to you, you call nonsense, even without
checking whether it agrees with data. How small-minded and unscientific. “
Not new. Just stupid.
Are you alive and dead at the same time?
Until someone looks?
Not science- wordplay and using made-up words like quantum spin.
Nonsense hole.

[Double-A]

Is not an orbital merely a probability distribution of where a particular electron is likely to be found at any particular moment?

Double-A

[john]

AA
“Is not an orbital merely a probability distribution of where a particular electron is likely to be found at any particular moment?
”
Yes just like a racetrack

[pora...@gmail.com]

===========================
see my new thread
about
''THE MACHINE GUN '' BULLET'' MODEL OF THE PHOTON


TIA
Y.Porat
==========================

[Odd Bodkin]

john <johnse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Odd
> “See? Anything foreign or new to you, you call nonsense, even without
> checking whether it agrees with data. How small-minded and unscientific. “
> Not new. Just stupid.

See? Did it again.

> Are you alive and dead at the same time?
> Until someone looks?
> Not science- wordplay and using made-up words like quantum spin.

Yes, made-up terms for new concepts not already in your concept set, that’s
what I’m talking about. You call such things nonsense whether they agree
with data or not.


> Nonsense hole.

[john]

Odd
“

Are you alive and dead at the same time?
> Until someone looks?
> Not science- wordplay and using made-up words like quantum spin.

Yes, made-up terms for new concepts not already in your concept set, that’s
what I’m talking about. You call such things nonsense whether they agree

with data or not. “
I think I’ll look in your box and find YOU alive, but you’re brain-dead.
Data needs proper interpretation- using logic. If they don’t agree, you don’t throw Logic out the window, you throw out your beyond-stupid model and get one that DOES Agee.
HUP is going down- so will the rest of your random-chaos BS.

[Odd Bodkin]

john <johnse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Odd
> “
>
> Are you alive and dead at the same time?

I observe myself.
Someone is looking.

Idiot.

>> Until someone looks?
>> Not science- wordplay and using made-up words like quantum spin.
>
> Yes, made-up terms for new concepts not already in your concept set, that’s
> what I’m talking about. You call such things nonsense whether they agree
> with data or not. “
> I think I’ll look in your box and find YOU alive, but you’re brain-dead.
> Data needs proper interpretation- using logic.

Again. You do not use the word “logic” correctly. What you are thinking of
is common sense and experience. And yes, if data disagrees with a common
sense premise, then you DO throw common sense out the window. Or you
SHOULD, but you don’t.

> If they don’t agree, you don’t throw Logic out the window, you throw out
> your beyond-stupid model and get one that DOES Agee.

Not true! You are supposed to find a theory that matches all the data
PERIOD, not one that fits your common sense and fits some of the data. You
do not think like a scientist. At all.

> HUP is going down- so will the rest of your random-chaos BS.
>

[Double-A]

I don't know about that. The electron seems to move erratically.

Double-A

[john]

AA
“I don't know about that. The electron seems to move erratically. ”
Is “erratically “ being found at regular intervals at the same place?
That’s what attophysics shows- every 100 attoseconds.

[Lofty Goat]

No, not like a racetrack.

Moreover, to be a useful concept an orbital is considered to have a
finite extent, so it's a volume where the probability of finding an
electron is *greater than some specific threshold*. (Look it up.)

Set the threshold to zero and every orbital fills the universe.

Note, by the way, that this is nothing like the behavior of galaxies.

--
Goat

[Alan Folmsbee]

The analogy for an electron is a star. Imagine the electron
being at the center of the frame of reference. An observer
standing on the electron will look up at the sky in
the center of the proton. A time-like dimension emerges from
the electron and only two dimensions of space fall down on
the electron.

[john]

Goat
“electron is *greater than some specific threshold*. (Look it up.) ”
Mathspeak.
In real life there are actual entities

[Edward Prochak]

On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 1:09:33 PM UTC-4, john wrote:
> Ed
> “That's exactly where you've been living, John.”
> QM is what’s nonsense.

Maybe you think so. But not in Physics

> It has no predictions.

O contraire, mon capitan!
It makes some very good predictions,
explaining for example the structure of some proteins.

> HUP is being proven wrong as we speak.

In your dreams perhaps.

> Every new observation of BHs brings new surprises.

And this is a good thing.

> “Moving but not moving”.

Your idea, not part of standard physics.

> What.
> A.
> Crock.
> And you guys lap that up.

And you speak of things you do not understand.
Sorry, john, but you are so predictable.

ed

[Edward Prochak]

Sorry but this analogy is not clear at all.
Is the electron the star? Then is the proton the BH
at the center of the galaxy? What about the other
elements? (e.g., Helium with 2 protons + 2 neutrons)?

Ed

[john]

ed ed ed
“Sorry but this analogy is not clear at all.

Is the electron the star? Then is the proton the BH
at the center of the galaxy? What about the other
elements? (e.g., Helium with 2 protons + 2 neutrons)?

”
Galactic arms- each with 50 BILLION stars are the electrons. Our galaxy has a bar and four arms- if the bar represents the first shell, then our galaxy is Carbon. See any carbon around?
The BH is the nucleus- which is as small as a flea in the Center of a baseball stadium

[Alan Folmsbee]

This analogy has the electron as a star and the sky is a proton.
That is a sub-universe that results in charge neutrality.
There is an equal number of protons and electrons in
the universe. They are all paired. Interactions in iron
with many protons is consistent with that pairing as
ambient fields can become a larger scale model for calculations.
The analogy is useful at small scales to unify gravity and electromagnetism.

[pora...@gmail.com]

===========================
what is erratically ??
I don't find that word in physics books (:-)
how about
vibrating like a string (composed of even smaller sub particles )????!!
TIA
Y.P
========================

[Chris M. Thomasson]

I wonder how many black holes are wandering around in each arm, within
the dust lanes of a "fertile" galaxy... I wonder if all of their
singularities are "connected" to the central massive black hole, or even
to other very large ones in close orbit to said center hyper massive.
Keep in mind that black holes do not mind merging together. Black hole A
eats B, C, D, and E, well A will grow according to the entropy within
the consumed set.

;^)

[Odd Bodkin]

So let’s see. Is there any iron around? How about galaxies with 26 arms?

[john]

Odd
“arms- if the bar represents the first shell, then our

> galaxy is Carbon. See any carbon around?
> The BH is the nucleus- which is as small as a flea in the Center of a baseball stadium
>

So let’s see. Is there any iron around? How about galaxies with 26 arms? ”

BUS!!! Odd!!!
Just kidding

[Odd Bodkin]

Kidding to deflect that you don’t have an answer?

I get a kick out of you cherry picking data, like comparing hydrogen atoms
to the Milky Way and making the itty bitty leap that ALL atoms are like all
galaxies. Even though most atoms have way more electrons (even in their
outer shells) than galaxies have arms, and even though the fraction of
galaxies that have well defined arms is pretty small.

[john]

Odd
“shells) than galaxies have arms, and even though the fraction of

galaxies that have well defined arms is pretty small.

“
ur too stupid

[Odd Bodkin]

You should perhaps explain it then. You claim that if it can’t be explained
to an everyday person, like me, then you don’t understand it.

So tell me how atoms with lots of electrons correspond to galaxies, most of
which have no arms.

[john]

Odd
“So tell me how atoms with lots of electrons correspond to galaxies, most of
which have no arms. ”
No

[Odd Bodkin]

Nor is there any reference you could point me to because of course this is
all only in your head.

So you will go on amusing yourself by cherry picking data that appeal to
you and ignoring the ones that shoot garage sized holes in the idea. And so
nothing you dream up will have anything to do with science. And yet you
post here, for reasons that I bet even you don’t understand.

[john]

Odd
“
in your head”
Persistent little snot, aren’t you?

[Odd Bodkin]

You bet. So are you, just in your faith.