OT: Are protons really quantum black holes?

[Happy Hippy]

And the numbers support.............galaxy rotation profiles?

At different size scale other factors come into play,
obviously.

You can't say the numbers are always right.

John

hey


And the numbers support.............galaxy rotation profiles?

Only if we infer a
totally new class of matter.

John

 

[Rich The Philosopher]

Happy Hippy wrote:
[I had written something, and somebody said it was stupid or
something...]
I don't agree.
I think you had a very intuitive idea.

Hey Sefton, do you know what the purpose of a falsifiable theory
is?
It's purpose is to transcend intuition. The guy had an idea. The
numbers don't support it. Case closed. -Mark Martin

And the numbers support.............galaxy rotation profiles?

At different size scale other factors come into play, obviously.

You can't say the numbers are always right.

And the numbers support.............galaxy rotation profiles?

Only if we infer a
totally new class of matter.

Here's some possibly interesting reading about reality and stuff:
http://www.arthuryoung.com/ruexc.HTML
http://www.rightuseofwill.com/books.htm
http://www.godchannel.com

Oh, and it turns out that God loves us, but he doesn't like nukes. :-D

Cheers!
Rich

 

[John Sefton]

Of course there is some similarity between atoms and galaxies - and also
solar systems in between. Any teenager with an imagination and some
interest in physics notices this. Of course, after thinking about it
for a short time, they note that the differences far outweigh the
similarities, and forget about it.

OK David.
Name your 5 main differences that preclude the comparison.
Please.

John

 

[Happy Hippy]

No... I mean did you, John, think that electrons when around an atomic
nucleus like stars in a spiral galaxy?

Let's say they do.

How do the stars in a spiral galaxy go around?
Do you think they go around in circles which
repeat in a sort of ecliptic plane?
Or might that ecliptic plane itself be rotating
around an axis within it? You do know that our
planets do this, do you not?
Are galaxies precessing?
Might this not lead to confusion about star
velocities (calculating pathways as 2D when they
are really 3D)?
What proof is there that they are?
What proof that they are not?

John

 

[Sam Wormley]

Stars are in Keplerian orbits. Electrons are not and cannot
even be described as having discrete boundaries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron

 

[Happy Hippy]

Let's say they do.

How do the stars in a spiral galaxy go around?
Do you think they go around in circles which
repeat in a sort of ecliptic plane?
Or might that ecliptic plane itself be rotating
around an axis within it? You do know that our
planets do this, do you not?
Are galaxies precessing?
Might this not lead to confusion about star
velocities (calculating pathways as 2D when they
are really 3D)?
What proof is there that they are?
What proof that they are not?

John

"Radio sources with jets can possess another peculiar shape due to a
combination of kinetic and geometrical effects. This occurs if the jets
precess about a defined axis. The precession can result in the jet being
curved as observed in the plane of the sky, although any fluid particle
of the jet always follows a straight trajectory. This behaviour is
manifested in the plane of the sky as inversion (or 180$ ^\circ$
rotation) symmetry. For example, a bend to the right in one jet becomes
a bent to the left in the opposite jet. A typical example is the radio
galaxy NGC 326 which is shown in fig.(I.5). It is very likely that this
precession originates at the very base of the jet (see Begelman et al.,
1984, and references therein), close to the central engine.

Figure I.5: Inversion symmetry in the radio galaxies source associated
with NGC 326. The radio image of the galaxy shows a bend in the top left
jet implies a bend to the bottom right jet. This peculiar shape arise
because the jets precess about a certain axis, resulting in a cone-like
radio structure. The projection on the plane of the sky of this motion
produces inversion symmetry."
from Bending of jets in radio galaxies

"It is very likely that this precession originates at the very base of
the jet" means the disc itself is precessing.
The magnetic structure arising at right-angles to the Milky Way also
curves.

John

 

[Happy Hippy]

Stars are in Keplerian orbits. Electrons are not and cannot
even be described as having discrete boundaries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron

Does a cloud have a discrete boundary?
A galactic arm of stars can assume any shape.
Look at some of the galactic interactions.
Are these objects with fluid boundaries?

We have pictures of radio galaxies that
are very obviously precessing because of the
shape of their magnetic jets.
Are those stars following Keplerian orbitals?

The arms in those discs must be accelerating
around *two* axes at once!

John

 

[Sam Wormley]

A galactic arm of stars can assume any shape.
Look at some of the galactic interactions.
Are these objects with fluid boundaries?

We have pictures of radio galaxies that
are very obviously precessing because of the
shape of their magnetic jets.
Are those stars following Keplerian orbitals?

The individual stars are following Keplerian orbits with
one focus at the net gavitational center at every instant.

 

[David Brown]

OK David.
Name your 5 main differences that preclude the comparison.
Please.

John

The most important differences are due to scale:

On the astronomic scale, gravity is by far the dominant effect. On the
atomic scale, the electromagnetic force is dominant (and also weak and
strong nuclear forces, when you get within the nucleus). These are very
different types of forces, leading to very different patterns.

On the atomic scale, quantum mechanics rules - on the astronomic scale,
relativity rules. One day, someone will figure out a successful and
consistent big toe, but even then the two theories will be very good
approximations in all but the most extreme cases. Among the differences
caused by this, it is not hard to find out where a given star is (or at
least, where it was), whereas it doesn't even make sense to ask where a
particular orbital electron is.

Atoms interact with their environment in many ways, such as partnerships
with neighbouring atoms, or electrons jumping between orbits. Galaxies,
to a large extent, are independent - their relations to other galaxies
are mostly minor due to the distances involved.

Atoms have a core that is totally different in character to the orbitals
- galaxies have no well-defined core, but simply a denser central region.

Atoms come in specific discrete sizes, all with the same spherical shape
(when isolated). Galaxies come in a wide range of shapes and sizes.


Looking at the similarities between galaxies (or more commonly, solar
systems) and atoms can be illustrative at a basic level, but the
similarities end quickly. It's like comparing a bacteria to a person,
and describing the nucleus as the "brain", and flagela as the "arms".

 

[Happy Hippy]

The individual stars are following Keplerian orbits with
one focus at the net gavitational center at every instant.

Conic sections they may be, but the
cone is also orbitting.

John

 

[Mark Martin]

Conic sections they may be, but the
cone is also orbitting.

[[[*Hey, John. I'm talking in a whisper so no one else can hear and
you won't be made an even bigger fool in public than you've already
made yourself... So here's the scoop: Keplerian orbits are conic
sections 'cause -get this- 'cause those shapes can be made by slicing
through a cone at various angles. But those shapes can also be made in
other ways without -get this- without cones. John, please make a note
of this... There's-no-gigantic-cone-out-in-space. There's no -get this-
no cone orbiting anything. Hope this helps. I really do. I'm praying
-get this- praying for you John.*]]]

-Mark Martin

 

[Rich The Philosopher]

On the atomic scale, quantum mechanics rules - on the astronomic scale,
relativity rules. One day, someone will figure out a successful and
consistent big toe, but even then the two theories will be very good
approximations in all but the most extreme cases.

Well, I've got one, but nobody seems interested in hearing it, probably
because, of necessity, it includes God/Goddess/All That Is, right inside
the same metabox as science and religion and art and philosophy and meat
and potatoes and pizza and sex and drugs and rock & roll. Otherwise,
it clearly wouldn't be a theory of _everything_. :-D

Cheers!
Rich

for further information, please visit http://www.godchannel.com

 

[tadchem]

Well, I've got one, but nobody seems interested in hearing it, probably
because, of necessity, it includes God/Goddess/All That Is, right inside
the same metabox as science and religion and art and philosophy and meat
and potatoes and pizza and sex and drugs and rock & roll. Otherwise,
it clearly wouldn't be a theory of _everything_. :-D

Those of us who work in what was once called the 'natural sciences'
(chemistry, physics, biology, and their kin) define 'science' by
reference to the 'scientific method' - a technique of developing and
testing theories about the observable universe by actually *making
observations* in a repeatible, observer-independent manner.

Many things on your list do not measure up to our standards for a
testable theory. Your 'theory of everything,' whatever it may
eventually turn out to be, cannot therefore be classified as a 'theory'
in the empirical sciences, and thus cannot be a theory that includes
science.

Your effort to be all-inclusive has pre-destined you to fail to include
empirical sciences.

Physicists OTOH do not even pretend to be interested in developing
theories about many of these things. A 'theory of everything' in
physics means an *empirically testable* theory that applies to all
*independently observable* pheonomena - a much less ambitious and much
more realizable goal than yours.

Happy philosophizing.

BTW, are you a sophomore? Most people I know outgrew the delusion that
they could ever possibly know Everything late in their second year. By
the time they started upper-division courses, they realized that they
couldn't even expect to learn Everything about their major subject in a
single lifetime.

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

 

[Bob Monsen]

Conic sections they may be, but the
cone is also orbitting.

[[[*Hey, John. I'm talking in a whisper so no one else can hear and
you won't be made an even bigger fool in public than you've already
made yourself... So here's the scoop: Keplerian orbits are conic
sections 'cause -get this- 'cause those shapes can be made by slicing
through a cone at various angles. But those shapes can also be made in
other ways without -get this- without cones. John, please make a note
of this... There's-no-gigantic-cone-out-in-space. There's no -get this-
no cone orbiting anything. Hope this helps. I really do. I'm praying
-get this- praying for you John.*]]]

He is clearly from France...

(silly movie reference)

---
Regards,
Bob Monsen

(A number) submits to be taken away from a number greater than itself, but
to take it away from a number less than itself is ridiculous. Yet this is
attempted by algebraists who talk of a number less than nothing; of
multiplying a negative number into a negative number and thus producing a
positive number; of a number being imaginary. ... This is all jargon, at
which common sense recoils; but, from its having been once adopted, like
many other figments, it finds the most strenuous supporters among those who
love to take things upon trust and hate the colour of serious thought.
- William Frend (father-in-law of Augustus De Morgan) in 1796

 

[Rich Grise]

.

(A number) submits to be taken away from a number greater than itself,
but to take it away from a number less than itself is ridiculous. Yet
this is attempted by algebraists who talk of a number less than nothing;
of multiplying a negative number into a negative number and thus
producing a positive number; of a number being imaginary. ... This is
all jargon, at which common sense recoils; but, from its having been
once adopted, like many other figments, it finds the most strenuous
supporters among those who love to take things upon trust and hate the
colour of serious thought. - William Frend (father-in-law of Augustus De
Morgan) in 1796

Obviously this guy never had to borrow any money, or played poker where
he had to pull light from the pot. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Bob Monsen]

Those of us who work in what was once called the 'natural sciences'
(chemistry, physics, biology, and their kin) define 'science' by
reference to the 'scientific method' - a technique of developing and
testing theories about the observable universe by actually *making
observations* in a repeatible, observer-independent manner.

Many things on your list do not measure up to our standards for a
testable theory. Your 'theory of everything,' whatever it may eventually
turn out to be, cannot therefore be classified as a 'theory' in the
empirical sciences, and thus cannot be a theory that includes science.

Your effort to be all-inclusive has pre-destined you to fail to include
empirical sciences.

Lots of physicists are working on string theory (yet another theory of
everything), which is considered little more than a religious cult by
physicists like Glashow. Is string theory science, according to your
definition?

---
Regards,
Bob Monsen

(A number) submits to be taken away from a number greater than itself, but
to take it away from a number less than itself is ridiculous. Yet this is
attempted by algebraists who talk of a number less than nothing; of
multiplying a negative number into a negative number and thus producing a
positive number; of a number being imaginary. ... This is all jargon, at
which common sense recoils; but, from its having been once adopted, like
many other figments, it finds the most strenuous supporters among those who
love to take things upon trust and hate the colour of serious thought.
- William Frend (father-in-law of Augustus De Morgan) in 1796

 

[Rich Grise]

.

(A number) submits to be taken away from a number greater than itself,
but to take it away from a number less than itself is ridiculous. Yet
this is attempted by algebraists who talk of a number less than nothing;
of multiplying a negative number into a negative number and thus
producing a positive number; of a number being imaginary. ... This is
all jargon, at which common sense recoils; but, from its having been
once adopted, like many other figments, it finds the most strenuous
supporters among those who love to take things upon trust and hate the
colour of serious thought. - William Frend (father-in-law of Augustus De
Morgan) in 1796

In this day and age, negative numbers are "almost intuitive" - when I
was in about fifth or 6th grade, they were teaching us the number line.
And the teacher asks, "So, what if you have three, but take away five?"
and some kid says, "Well, then you'd be two in the hole." The teacher
said "Exactly!!" and lit up like "Wow, one of them *GOT IT*!!" ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Bob Monsen]

Obviously this guy never had to borrow any money, or played poker where
he had to pull light from the pot. ;-)

Things that make no sense often become obvious once somebody points out
a simple geometric model. For negative numbers, it is the infinite
number line which stretches in both directions. For complex numbers, it
is the plane. Until the notion of 'imaginary' numbers was associated
with a geometric model of the plane, nobody took them seriously.

However, if you think in terms of Euclidian geometry, lengths are always
positive, and ratios are always 'constructable' or considered obscene...
(all the men are good looking, and all the kids are above average). There
is no measurement as such. Because of this, there is has been a constant
historical tension between geometers and alegebraists. Some people think
in pictures, some in symbols...

---
Regards,
Bob Monsen

(Regarding sqrt(-1)) : ... we can repudiate completely and which we can
abandon without regret because one does not know what this pretended sign
signifies nor what sense one ought to attribute to it.
- Cauchy in 1847

 

[Happy Hippy]

Happy Hippy wrote:

Conic sections they may be, but the
cone is also orbitting.

[[[*Hey, John. I'm talking in a whisper so no one else can hear and
you won't be made an even bigger fool in public than you've already
made yourself... So here's the scoop: Keplerian orbits are conic
sections 'cause -get this- 'cause those shapes can be made by slicing
through a cone at various angles. But those shapes can also be made in
other ways without -get this- without cones. John, please make a note
of this... There's-no-gigantic-cone-out-in-space. There's no -get this-
no cone orbiting anything. Hope this helps. I really do. I'm praying
-get this- praying for you John.*]]]

-Mark Martin

It's impossible to explain something to you in simple
fashion, because then you take it that way,
and equally impossible to explain in more complex
terms, because you are so distractible that you chase
the first red herring.

How do stars follow Keplerian orbits when the galaxy
they are in is itself turning end-over-end? That was the
question.
Looking at their pathways after numerous flips and flops of the parent
galaxy, do you still think them to be following elipses?
(No, I didn't accuse you of talking with a lisp.)

Hello? Is *anybody* home?

John
Galaxy Model for the Atom
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/

 

[Mark Martin]

This peculiar shape arise
because the jets precess about a certain axis, resulting in a cone-like
radio structure.

That's not the same thing AT ALL, Dimwit.

-Mark Martin