Every electron is a radiating cloud.
john
in the same way as our sun.
Any single arm of a spiral galaxy should contain the
same number of average suns, because all electrons are
equal.
When the radiation travels outward from a single
source, it diverges.
But when this same radiation is coming inward
from all sources, it doesn't diverge; it is parallel
lines coming from every point.
john
Uncle Al
>
> Each of the bodies making up the electron cloud is radiating
> in the same way as our sun.
> Any single arm of a spiral galaxy should contain the
> same number of average suns, because all electrons are
> equal.
idiot
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
john
> john wrote:
>
> > Each of the bodies making up the electron cloud is radiating
> > in the same way as our sun.
> > Any single arm of a spiral galaxy should contain the
> > same number of average suns, because all electrons are
> > equal.
>
> [snip rest of crap]
>
> idiot
>
contain equal amounts of star material.
How does that happen with big bang?
Michael Moroney
>On Mar 24, 9:18=A0am, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>> john wrote:
>>
>> > Each of the bodies making up the electron cloud is radiating
>> > in the same way as our sun.
>> > Any single arm of a spiral galaxy should contain the
>> > same number of average suns, because all electrons are
>> > equal.
>>
>> [snip rest of crap]
>>
>> idiot
>>
>Galactic arms will be found to
>contain equal amounts of star material.
We already know that that is not true. There are big galaxies, there are
little galaxies, and all kinds of in-between ones. There are galaxies
with and without spiral arms at all.
>How does that happen with big bang?
Since it doesn't, this question is irrelevant.
Y.Porat
> john wrote:
>
> > Each of the bodies making up the electron cloud is radiating
> > in the same way as our sun.
> > Any single arm of a spiral galaxy should contain the
> > same number of average suns, because all electrons are
> > equal.
>
> [snip rest of crap]
>
> idiot
>
> --
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
-------------
and what do **you * know about the electron
pompous idiot ??
Y.P
-------------------
Sam Wormley
> Galactic arms will be found to
> contain equal amounts of star material.
> How does that happen with big bang?
Add a bit of vinegar to your word salad.
john
wrote:
>
Obviously there are larger and smaller galaxies.
There are also larger and smaller atoms.
We know that an atom by itself may
contain one, or two, or other multiples
of one electron.
I'm saying if galaxies with small numbers of arms
are examined, they will be shown to exhibit
this same step-wise composition wrt
number of average stars.
Is that not a good enough
prediction for the galaxy model to make?
john
Uncle Ben
John, what are you smoking, man? It is really giving you a trip.
john
See the reply to the Moroney post above.
Let's extrapolate.
All matter is radiating a PUSH from its
electrons all the time.
There is matter in all directions pushing
at us all the time.
All matter also needs to absorb this same
energy all the time.
john
Androcles
"Uncle Ben" <b...@greenba.com> wrote in message
news:bd35125c-67cc-4dbd...@t23g2000yqt.googlegroups.com...
===========================================
He's smoking the same shit you did, believing that
tau = t*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
= 2.2 usec * sqrt(1-0.999^2)
= 49.2 usec (bwahahahahaha),
giving enough time for a cosmic muon to reach sea level from the upper
atmosphere... only trouble is, tau = 0.01 usec by my calculator.
"Harry is right. And Androcles did indeed read Einstein's paper more
carefully than I did." -- The Green Bonehead.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/green
9 a : deficient in training, knowledge, or experience <green recruits> b :
deficient in sophistication and savoir faire : naive c : not fully qualified
for or experienced in a particular function
Never could manage schoolboy algebra, could you, Uncle Bonehead Green Jr.
Ph. D. physics 1956 Schenectady redneck of science?
BURT
wrote:
Point particles are infinitely dense in energy.
Mitch Raemsch
Michael Moroney
There are billions and billions of galaxies observable out
there. If there were any sort of quantization of stars like this,
it would have been long ago discovered.
(I remember doing Millikan's Oil Drop Experiment in high school physics
which showed quantization of electric charges. Similar observations
would show the same in galaxies)
>Is that not a good enough
>prediction for the galaxy model to make?
Interesting prediction, but it would have been found long ago.
Thinking that physics is fractal all the way down (and all the way up)
is a cute idea, but there simply isn't any evidence of it. Quantum
mechanics changes the rules for "small" stuff anyway, effectively
ruling that out.
Michael Moroney
>"Uncle Ben" <b...@greenba.com> wrote in message
>news:bd35125c-67cc-4dbd...@t23g2000yqt.googlegroups.com...
>John, what are you smoking, man? It is really giving you a trip.
>===========================================
>He's smoking the same shit you did, believing that
>tau = t*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> = 2.2 usec * sqrt(1-0.999^2)
> = 49.2 usec (bwahahahahaha),
>giving enough time for a cosmic muon to reach sea level from the upper
>atmosphere... only trouble is, tau = 0.01 usec by my calculator.
Try it again with the correct formula this time.
Androcles
"Michael Moroney" <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
news:hodurc$o8n$2...@pcls4.std.com...
I used this one, dumbfuck:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img61.gif
Try it again with the correct brain this time.
Sam Wormley
Why don't you read Feynman's QED?
Michael Moroney
>"Michael Moroney" <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>news:hodurc$o8n$2...@pcls4.std.com...
>> "Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_w> writes:
>>
>>
>>>"Uncle Ben" <b...@greenba.com> wrote in message
>>>news:bd35125c-67cc-4dbd...@t23g2000yqt.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>John, what are you smoking, man? It is really giving you a trip.
>>>===========================================
>>>He's smoking the same shit you did, believing that
>>>tau = t*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
>>> = 2.2 usec * sqrt(1-0.999^2)
>>> = 49.2 usec (bwahahahahaha),
>>
>> Try it again with the correct formula this time.
>I used this one, dumbfuck:
> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img61.gif
My mistake. You were just too senile to do simple algebra.
tau = t*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
= 2.2 usec * sqrt(1-0.999^2)
= 0.098 uS (not 49.2 usec)
meaning that in 2.2uS of ground time, the muon experiences only 98 nS.
But that's not what we want. We want the ground time that corresponds
to 2.2uS of muon time (its half life).
That would be:
t = tau/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
= 2.2uS/sqrt(1-0.999^2)
= 2.2uS/0.04471
= 49.2 uS.
People on Earth would see those muons as "living" for 49.2 uS, and in the
process, travelling about 14745 meters.
So, you either swapped t and tau, or you used the wrong formula, or you
can't tell the difference between the "times" and "divide" keys on your
calculator. Six of one, half dozen of the other.
john
Telescopes are still being improved.
>
> Thinking that physics is fractal all the way down (and all the way up)
> is a cute idea, but there simply isn't any evidence of it. Quantum
> mechanics changes the rules for "small" stuff anyway, effectively
> ruling that out.- Hide quoted text -
Please don't remind me of that
rule change. I've never liked rule changes,
and I don't like this one.
'Small stuff' indeed. Describe your 'small stuff'.
Does it have a pointy end?
john
Androcles
> "Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_w> writes:
>
>>"Michael Moroney" <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>>news:hodurc$o8n$2...@pcls4.std.com...
>>> "Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_w> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Uncle Ben" <b...@greenba.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:bd35125c-67cc-4dbd...@t23g2000yqt.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>>John, what are you smoking, man? It is really giving you a trip.
>>>>===========================================
>>>>He's smoking the same shit you did, believing that
>>>>tau = t*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
>>>> = 2.2 usec * sqrt(1-0.999^2)
>>>> = 49.2 usec (bwahahahahaha),
>>>
>>> Try it again with the correct formula this time.
>
>>I used this one, dumbfuck:
>> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img61.gif
>
> My mistake.
Damn right, your mistake.
>You were just too senile to do simple algebra.
You are smoking the same shit too, huh?
>
> tau = t*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> = 2.2 usec * sqrt(1-0.999^2)
> = 0.098 uS (not 49.2 usec)
>
> meaning that in 2.2uS of ground time, the muon experiences only 98 nS.
Meaning that in 2.2uS of ground time the muon experiences 2.2uS of ground
time
measured by ground clocks, you dumb bastard.
> But that's not what we want.
Too fuckin' bad, you get what your Pope the Holy Shithead Einstein gives you
whether you want it or not, moron.
You are just too deranged to do simple algebra. "Try it again with the
correct formula this time." - Baloney Moroney.
In a fair race, on the same race track and timed by the same clock, Muon
beats Photon and disproves Einstein's silly shit. Fucking weep, Moroney.
Michael Moroney
>On Mar 24, 3:01 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
>wrote:
>>
>> There are billions and billions of galaxies observable out
>> there. If there were any sort of quantization of stars like this,
>> it would have been long ago discovered.
>>
>> (I remember doing Millikan's Oil Drop Experiment in high school physics
>> which showed quantization of electric charges. Similar observations
>> would show the same in galaxies)
>>
>> >Is that not a good enough
>> >prediction for the galaxy model to make?
>>
>> Interesting prediction, but it would have been found long ago.
>Telescopes are still being improved.
Yeah, so what. Quantization like your claims would have been
discovered long ago if it existed.
>> Thinking that physics is fractal all the way down (and all the way up)
>> is a cute idea, but there simply isn't any evidence of it. Quantum
>> mechanics changes the rules for "small" stuff anyway, effectively
>> ruling that out.- Hide quoted text -
>Please don't remind me of that
>rule change. I've never liked rule changes,
>and I don't like this one.
>'Small stuff' indeed. Describe your 'small stuff'.
>Does it have a pointy end?
"Small" is when the laws of quantum physics become significant.
The Heisenberg Uncertainty principle (we know exactly where a baseball is,
but we can't know exactly where an electron is) and quantization (we
can have 1 electron, or 20 electrons, but we cannot have 2 1/2 electrons.
Plus all stars are different, but all electrons are the same) to name
two.
Michael Moroney
>"Michael Moroney" <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>news:hoef32$uls$1...@pcls6.std.com...
>> "Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_w> writes:
>>
>>>"Michael Moroney" <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>>>news:hodurc$o8n$2...@pcls4.std.com...
>>>> "Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_w> writes:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Uncle Ben" <b...@greenba.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:bd35125c-67cc-4dbd...@t23g2000yqt.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>>>John, what are you smoking, man? It is really giving you a trip.
>>>>>===========================================
>>>>>He's smoking the same shit you did, believing that
>>>>>tau = t*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
>>>>> = 2.2 usec * sqrt(1-0.999^2)
>>>>> = 49.2 usec (bwahahahahaha),
>>>>
>>>> Try it again with the correct formula this time.
>>
>>>I used this one, dumbfuck:
>>> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img61.gif
>>
>> My mistake.
>Damn right, your mistake.
...for not realizing how fucktarded you actually are.
>>
>> tau = t*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
>> = 2.2 usec * sqrt(1-0.999^2)
>> = 0.098 uS (not 49.2 usec)
>>
>> meaning that in 2.2uS of ground time, the muon experiences only 98 nS.
>Meaning that in 2.2uS of ground time the muon experiences 2.2uS of ground
>time
>measured by ground clocks, you dumb bastard.
I see that there is an additional possibility beyond using the wrong
formula, swapping t and tau, and confusing multiply and divide.
That is, you are simply too fucktardedly stoooopid. You manage to
come up with the correct portion of Einstein's work, but then the
fucktardedness kicks in full force and you spew forth that! Anyone
else who can do simple algebra can plug in 2.2 uS and come up with
0.098 uS. That thorazine wears off quickly, doesn't it.
Uncle Ben
wrote:
> "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_w> writes:
> >"Michael Moroney" <moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
> >news:hoef32$uls$1...@pcls6.std.com...
> >> "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_w> writes:
>
> >>>"Michael Moroney" <moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:hodurc$o8n$2...@pcls4.std.com...
>
> - Show quoted text -
Michael, he did the same thing with Einstein's derivation of the
Lorentz Contraction, and concluded that Einstein actually showed that
SR predicts the expansion of a meter stick w.r.t. a frame in which it
is moving. No amount of explanation has proved helpful.
He is expecting a call from the Swedish Academy any day now.
Uncle Ben
For details, see www.greenba.com, entries involving Androcles.
Androcles
============================================
I expect Moroney has a redneck Ph.D. like you, Green.
The only slight problem you have is proof.
Androcles
> "Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_w> writes:
>
>>"Michael Moroney" <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>>news:hoef32$uls$1...@pcls6.std.com...
>>> "Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_w> writes:
>>>
>>>>"Michael Moroney" <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:hodurc$o8n$2...@pcls4.std.com...
>>>>> "Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_w> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Uncle Ben" <b...@greenba.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:bd35125c-67cc-4dbd...@t23g2000yqt.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>>John, what are you smoking, man? It is really giving you a trip.
>>>>>>===========================================
>>>>>>He's smoking the same shit you did, believing that
>>>>>>tau = t*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
>>>>>> = 2.2 usec * sqrt(1-0.999^2)
>>>>>> = 49.2 usec (bwahahahahaha),
>>>>>
>>>>> Try it again with the correct formula this time.
>>>
>>>>I used this one, dumbfuck:
>>>> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img61.gif
>>>
>>> My mistake.
>
>>Damn right, your mistake.
>>>
>>> tau = t*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
>>> = 2.2 usec * sqrt(1-0.999^2)
>>> = 0.098 uS (not 49.2 usec)
>>>
>>> meaning that in 2.2uS of ground time, the muon experiences only 98 nS.
>
>>Meaning that in 2.2uS of ground time the muon experiences 2.2uS of ground
>>time
>>measured by ground clocks, you dumb bastard.
>
> I see that
Ok, good, you've learnt something for a change. Well done, retarded
dumbfuck.
Keep it up, you may eventually mature. And stay off the drugs.
Michael Moroney
>Michael, he did the same thing with Einstein's derivation of the
>Lorentz Contraction, and concluded that Einstein actually showed that
>SR predicts the expansion of a meter stick w.r.t. a frame in which it
>is moving. No amount of explanation has proved helpful.
I know all about John Parker and his obsession with Einstein/relativity.
I'm just kookbaiting, kooks are fun to play with sometimes.
I saw your "Einstein Expansion" webpage and it does appear he tried to do
the exact same thing when he "accidentally" mixed up t and tau.
Androcles
Bwahahahaha! two shitheads that are all mouth and no ability to read
algebra,
Bonehead Green ARS and Baloney Moroney ARS, both fucked by Einstein.
ARS = American Redneck of Science.
john
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
All stars are different, but the
sum total of star matter in a single
galactic arm could still be the same.
But some galaxies are very bright
and others are not, which to me is the difference
between excited and not excited, and since
heated matter still weighs the same, it is
unlikely that the photons create gravity.
So it must be the electron's equivalent to
neutrinos that causes gravity.
john
Michael Moroney
>On Mar 25, 11:14 am, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
>wrote:
>> "Small" is when the laws of quantum physics become significant.
>> The Heisenberg Uncertainty principle (we know exactly where a baseball is=
>,
>> but we can't know exactly where an electron is) and quantization (we
>> can have 1 electron, or 20 electrons, but we cannot have 2 1/2 electrons.
>> Plus all stars are different, but all electrons are the same) to name
>> two.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>All stars are different, but the
>sum total of star matter in a single
>galactic arm could still be the same.
Given the huge range of sizes of galaxies, I'd say unlikely.
>But some galaxies are very bright
>and others are not, which to me is the difference
>between excited and not excited, and since
>heated matter still weighs the same, it is
>unlikely that the photons create gravity.
>So it must be the electron's equivalent to
>neutrinos that causes gravity.
Some vinagrette with that word salad?
Androcles
> john <veg...@accesscomm.ca> writes:
>
>>On Mar 25, 11:14 am, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
>>wrote:
>>> "Small" is when the laws of quantum physics become significant.
>>> The Heisenberg Uncertainty principle (we know exactly where a baseball
>>> is=
>>,
>>> but we can't know exactly where an electron is) and quantization (we
>>> can have 1 electron, or 20 electrons, but we cannot have 2 1/2
>>> electrons.
>>> Plus all stars are different, but all electrons are the same) to name
>>> two.- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>
>>All stars are different, but the
>>sum total of star matter in a single
>>galactic arm could still be the same.
>
> Given the huge range of sizes of galaxies, I'd say unlikely.
Given the huge range of ignorant fuckwits, I'd say you were a shithead.
>>But some galaxies are very bright
>>and others are not, which to me is the difference
>>between excited and not excited, and since
>>heated matter still weighs the same, it is
>>unlikely that the photons create gravity.
>>So it must be the electron's equivalent to
>>neutrinos that causes gravity.
>
> Some vinagrette with that word salad?
Yeah, sure.
tau = t * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), so
2.2 * 1/gamma = 0.01 uS and Einstein, like you, was a retarded kook
spewing word soup.
john
wrote:
> john <vega...@accesscomm.ca> writes:
> >On Mar 25, 11:14 am, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
> >wrote:
> >> "Small" is when the laws of quantum physics become significant.
> >> The Heisenberg Uncertainty principle (we know exactly where a baseball is=
> >,
> >> but we can't know exactly where an electron is) and quantization (we
> >> can have 1 electron, or 20 electrons, but we cannot have 2 1/2 electrons.
> >> Plus all stars are different, but all electrons are the same) to name
> >> two.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
> >All stars are different, but the
> >sum total of star matter in a single
> >galactic arm could still be the same.
>
> Given the huge range of sizes of galaxies, I'd say unlikely.
and other times, like now, it's obvious there isn't.
>
> >But some galaxies are very bright
> >and others are not, which to me is the difference
> >between excited and not excited, and since
> >heated matter still weighs the same, it is
> >unlikely that the photons create gravity.
> >So it must be the electron's equivalent to
> >neutrinos that causes gravity.
>
> Some vinagrette with that word salad?
coming from electrons: the photon equivalent or the
neutrino equivalent.
I'm betting neutrino.
Michael Moroney
>Sometimes your answers indicate comprehension,
>and other times, like now, it's obvious there isn't.
Sometimes your posts are somewhat comprehendible, sometimes they are
little more than word salad.
>> Some vinagrette with that word salad?
>There are two candidates for gravitons/magnetons
>coming from electrons: the photon equivalent or the
>neutrino equivalent.
>I'm betting neutrino.
Given that all electrons are identical, and all electrons remain the
same (in particular, they don't get "lighter" as they radiate mythical
"magnetons" or "neutrinos" away), I'm betting nothing.
BURT
wrote:
How do point particles rotate? They have infinite degrees of freedom.
Mitch Raemsch
Michael Moroney
>On Mar 26, 9:26 am, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
>wrote:
>>
>> Given that all electrons are identical, and all electrons remain the
>> same (in particular, they don't get "lighter" as they radiate mythical
>> "magnetons" or "neutrinos" away), I'm betting nothing.
>How do point particles rotate?
They don't.