Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #593758 > unrolled thread

Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 17:19 -0700
    Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 07:45 -0500
      Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-19 22:48 +0000
      Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 16:48 -0700
        Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 07:56 -0500
    Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-08-19 12:25 -0700
      Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-08-20 14:12 -0700
    Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-08-19 23:11 -0400
      Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-20 06:14 -0700
        Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-20 10:17 -0500
      Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-21 19:08 +0200
        Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-24 01:44 +0200
      Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-08-22 23:36 -0700
        Re: Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-08-23 04:38 -0400
          Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-23 07:06 -0500
            Re: Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-08-24 02:15 -0400
              Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 07:39 -0500
                Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 05:57 -0700
                  Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 09:02 -0500
                    Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 08:01 -0700
                      Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 10:53 -0500
                      Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-27 19:25 +0000
                    Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 08:07 -0700
                      Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 08:37 -0700
                        Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 11:40 -0500
                          Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 13:09 -0700
                            Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 13:27 -0700
                            Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 15:57 -0500
                              Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 16:36 -0700
                                Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 07:54 -0500
                                  Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-26 05:25 +0200
                                  Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-28 07:26 -0700
                                    Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-28 11:09 -0700
                        Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-27 19:35 +0000
                      Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 11:18 -0500
                      Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-27 19:33 +0000
              Re: Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-08-24 12:12 -0700
                Re: Re: Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-08-25 01:55 -0400
                  Re: Re: Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-25 08:21 +0200
                    Re: Re: Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 05:58 -0700
                      Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 08:51 -0500
                      Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 08:55 -0500
                        Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 08:35 -0700
                          Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 10:39 -0500
                            Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 09:11 -0700
                              Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 11:21 -0500
                                Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 10:29 -0700
                                  Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 13:58 -0500
                          Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-27 20:05 +0000
                            Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-27 15:02 -0700
                              Re: Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-08-29 03:30 -0400
                                Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-30 20:18 +0200
                                Re: Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-30 20:35 +0200
                      Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-25 19:45 +0200
                        Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 11:14 -0700
                          Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 11:17 -0700
                            Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 14:00 -0500
                          Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-25 20:57 +0200
                          Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 16:24 -0500
                      Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-27 20:00 +0000
                  Re: Re: Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-08-25 11:42 -0700
          Re: Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-08-23 10:31 -0700
            Re: Re: Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-08-24 02:54 -0400
            a krok is when noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 10:24 -0700
          Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-24 01:31 +0200
            Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-23 17:57 -0700
              Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 07:29 -0500
            pre-Alfvenic notions of space\Universe noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 10:28 -0700
              Re: pre-Alfvenic notions of space\Universe Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-24 21:20 +0200
                could be simpler, ug ... ugh noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-29 11:21 -0700
                  Re: could be simpler, ug ... ugh Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-30 08:45 +0200
                    1/c is in units of seconds per second per secondpower meters ... regular tetragona were not hurt in the attempt noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-30 13:36 -0700
      Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-23 14:17 -0700
    Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter "Sergio" <invalid@example.com> - 2016-08-20 15:17 -0700
    Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-08-27 12:54 -0700
      Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-08-30 12:39 -0700

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#594490

On 8/24/2016 10:01 AM, john wrote:
> Odd said
> "Hint: Science without observation as a critical ingredient is not science.
> Do you even KNOW what the scientific method is? Can you look it up in
> wikipedia maybe? "
> No.

OK, so you don't know what the scientific method even is, and you don't 
care what it is. So tell me again why you hang around sci.physics?

> You tell me why it's infallible, again.
> Hint:  fundamental

Who said anything about infallible? You know how you tell what parts of 
it are wrong?
Hint: Observation


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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594888

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Odd said
>"Hint: Science without observation as a critical ingredient is not science. 
>Do you even KNOW what the scientific method is? Can you look it up in 
>wikipedia maybe? "
>No.

And that's your great big problem, right there.  You don't even know what
the scientific method is! And won't look it up.

Why are you even here?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594485

Odd
Observations that are ignored
because they violate
the accepted paradigm
out there much?
Or subconsciously misinterpreted?
I told you before about the theatre room
where the schizophrenics and
the "normals" both saw the 1/30 second
broken circle,
and the normals all missed the fact that
it was broken- because we round 
observations out to fit our worldview.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594489

Let's look at galaxies.
What an odd structure: a disc.
All the planets are spheres.
Yet, the galaxy sits within a
spherical halo of stars.
Whence came them?

Now look at a coin on the
table- can a disc become a sphere?
Why, yes it can- by being spun, either
clockwise or counterclockwise 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594495

On 8/24/2016 10:37 AM, john wrote:
> Let's look at galaxies.
> What an odd structure: a disc.
> All the planets are spheres.
> Yet, the galaxy sits within a
> spherical halo of stars.
> Whence came them?
>
> Now look at a coin on the
> table- can a disc become a sphere?
> Why, yes it can- by being spun, either
> clockwise or counterclockwise
>

SOME galaxies are discs. Others are elliptical or irregular.

Saturn is an example of a planet with a central oblate spheroid mass 
distribution and a disc mass distribution. A lot like what gives rise to 
the shape of spiral galaxies.

A coin only becomes a sphere when its rotation is faster than your eye 
can resolve. Pretty sure that elliptical galaxies are not discs rotating 
faster than the eye can resolve.

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594547

Odd said
"A coin only becomes a sphere when its rotation is faster than your eye 
can resolve. Pretty sure that elliptical galaxies are not discs rotating 
faster than the eye can resolve. "

Pretty sure where ur butt is? Need two hands?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594551

When a coin is spinning on the table,
the head is seen to be up sometimes,
down sometimes, in between the rest.

Is the disc itself:
a. Rotating at a predictable rate according to
     spin rate?
b. Rotating variably?

Show your work
    

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594567

On 8/24/2016 3:09 PM, john wrote:
> Odd said
> "A coin only becomes a sphere when its rotation is faster than your eye
> can resolve. Pretty sure that elliptical galaxies are not discs rotating
> faster than the eye can resolve. "
>
> Pretty sure where ur butt is? Need two hands?
>

Well, John, that was a constructive response, wasn't it?

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594587

Odd
Sigh.
Is the limit to what is 3D
what the Human eye can resolve?
30fps.
So, atoms can't be 2D because
they precess at 10^16 per second?
Because we can't perceive with
our instruments- or eyes- that it
is a precessing disc, then it isn't one?
How QM of you, professor.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594642

On 8/24/2016 6:36 PM, john wrote:
> Odd
> Sigh.
> Is the limit to what is 3D
> what the Human eye can resolve?
> 30fps.
> So, atoms can't be 2D because
> they precess at 10^16 per second?

I was talking about galaxies, John, not atoms.
I don't get the two confused. You do, switching from one to the other as 
it suits you.
Do you really think that elliptical galaxies are really disc galaxies 
precessing at a rate faster than 30fps?

> Because we can't perceive with
> our instruments- or eyes- that it
> is a precessing disc, then it isn't one?
> How QM of you, professor.
>


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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594735

Odd Bodkin wrote:

> On 8/24/2016 6:36 PM, john wrote:
>> Odd
>> Sigh.
>> Is the limit to what is 3D
>> what the Human eye can resolve?
>> 30fps.
>> So, atoms can't be 2D because
>> they precess at 10^16 per second?
> 
> I was talking about galaxies, John, not atoms.
> I don't get the two confused. You do, switching from one to the other as
> it suits you.
> Do you really think that elliptical galaxies are really disc galaxies
> precessing at a rate faster than 30fps?

<http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/precession?q=precess#precession__4>
<http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/precession>

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594980

0dd said
"Do you really think that elliptical galaxies are really disc galaxies 
precessing at a rate faster than 30fps? "

Your autocorrect is broken, Odd.
Galaxies turn once per 225 million years.
If the disc precesses twice that, is that faster
than 30fps?

Kids should learn math before using
calculators to understand "ballpark "
figures. You want to be in the same
ballpark, Odd, don't you?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594993

However, Odd
a disc the diameter of an atom
(10^_09m for Carbon)
would be precessing 10^16 fps.
How would you prove
it's a disc?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594890

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Let's look at galaxies.
>What an odd structure: a disc.
>All the planets are spheres.
>Yet, the galaxy sits within a
>spherical halo of stars.
>Whence came them?

Planets aren't galaxies.

>Now look at a coin on the
>table- can a disc become a sphere?
>Why, yes it can- by being spun, either
>clockwise or counterclockwise 

Nope. It is still a disk.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594493

On 8/24/2016 10:07 AM, john wrote:
> Odd
> Observations that are ignored
> because they violate
> the accepted paradigm
> out there much?

I don't think validated experimental results are ignored.

> Or subconsciously misinterpreted?

So you think observations in science are hopelessly corrupted and 
unreliable? And so you think the scientific method that relies so 
heavily on experiment and observation is doomed because of that?

And so why are you here on a science newsgroup?

Tell me, John, let's suppose there's a new idea that emerges that claims 
to be a scientific one. What do you propose as a test to see if the idea 
is any good or not, whether it actually represents reality or not? 
Observation and experiment are now unavailable to you, because you say 
they're unreliable. So what do you propose to use instead?

> I told you before about the theatre room
> where the schizophrenics and
> the "normals" both saw the 1/30 second
> broken circle,
> and the normals all missed the fact that
> it was broken- because we round
> observations out to fit our worldview.
>


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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594889

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Odd
>Observations that are ignored
>because they violate
>the accepted paradigm
>out there much?

What?  Such "ignored" observations are worth a Nobel Prize if they violate
something significant!  Any such observations, if real, won't get ignored
for long!

>I told you before about the theatre room
>where the schizophrenics and
>the "normals" both saw the 1/30 second
>broken circle,
>and the normals all missed the fact that
>it was broken- because we round 
>observations out to fit our worldview.

"We" John?  Are you schizophrenic?  Also, are you familiar with the term
"idiot savant"?  It is true that many mentally disabled have extraordinary
abilities "normal" people rarely have.  But these abilities are usually
able to be done by machines as well.  For example, your theater example
could easily be detected by video and electronics.  Also there was this
guy in Italy who could be taken by helocoptor above (I think it was) Rome,
Italy and when he was brought down he could paint the whole scene from 
memory.  But a camera can do that.  The amazing thing is when a person
can do that.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594526

On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 2:15:52 AM UTC-4, Michael Strickland wrote:
[]
> 
> Or maybe you could just think for yourself instead of regurgitating
> what you have been told by the "party line" physics community. That's
> another tried and true method of determining what to believe.
> 
I'll say it again, Physicists do not believe in theories.


> After all, I'm sure there were plenty of data, "papers", and theories
> claiming the earth was flat back when that was the "consensus."

And a flat earth was the current best theory for a long time, until
EVIDENCE showed that it was wrong. Scientists did not suddenly
change the theory of the earth/universe. It took data.

> 
> The original definition of anti-matter was same mass, opposite charge
> (Dirac's prediction and Anderson's discovery) before "parity" was
> added to the "zoo" of particle characteristics to account for
> experimental results that conflicted with predicted ones.
> 
And that is the was science works. A theory lasts only as long
as its predictions are correct and useful. Relativity grew out of
the need to explain the Michelson/Morley results and other evidence
that contradicted the prevailing theory of the time, Aether theory.

So, you have choices:
1. You can believe atoms are half matter/half antimatter.

In which case your posts are more appropriate in talk.religion

2. You can propose the half-and-half theory and make some
predictions that can test whether it works or not.

You haven't done so to this point. You only argue that physics
should be more open to ideas from inexperienced people.

3. You can learn what the current prevailing theories are instead
of mocking them.

Of course you must also gain the knowledge that these theories
WILL change over time as new evidence and understanding is found.

Now if you continue to pick choice 1. I will continue to suggest your
posts are off topic for sci.physics and should be in talk.religion.

Make your choice and have a nice day.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594630

On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 12:12:53 -0700 (PDT), edprochak@gmail.com wrote:

>On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 2:15:52 AM UTC-4, Michael Strickland wrote:
>[]
>> 
>> Or maybe you could just think for yourself instead of regurgitating
>> what you have been told by the "party line" physics community. That's
>> another tried and true method of determining what to believe.
>> 
>I'll say it again, Physicists do not believe in theories.

Do you know any physicists that don't believe in the fundamental
theorems of algebra or calculus? Do you think continuing to lie about
them will make them agree with you?

>
>> After all, I'm sure there were plenty of data, "papers", and theories
>> claiming the earth was flat back when that was the "consensus."
>
>And a flat earth was the current best theory for a long time, until
>EVIDENCE showed that it was wrong. Scientists did not suddenly
>change the theory of the earth/universe. It took data.

Exactly my point. There is new data coming in every day. Theory, being
logically designed instead of contorted to fit empirical data and
popular notions and consensi, often predicts new experimental data.


>> The original definition of anti-matter was same mass, opposite charge
>> (Dirac's prediction and Anderson's discovery) before "parity" was
>> added to the "zoo" of particle characteristics to account for
>> experimental results that conflicted with predicted ones.
>> 
>And that is the was science works. A theory lasts only as long
>as its predictions are correct and useful. Relativity grew out of
>the need to explain the Michelson/Morley results and other evidence
>that contradicted the prevailing theory of the time, Aether theory.

In English please. Did you mean "that is the way science works?"

Michelson/Morley, if you've bothered to examine it instead of just
accept and regurgitate one interpretation of it, is consistent with
both Galilean Relativity and Special Relativity.


>So, you have choices:
>1. You can believe atoms are half matter/half antimatter.
>
>In which case your posts are more appropriate in talk.religion

No they will stay here. Just use a "kill filter" if they bother you.
This obsession of yours with "talk.religion" is getting tiresome.


>2. You can propose the half-and-half theory and make some
>predictions that can test whether it works or not.
>
>You haven't done so to this point. You only argue that physics
>should be more open to ideas from inexperienced people.

I'm very experienced. Are you experienced?

>3. You can learn what the current prevailing theories are instead
>of mocking them.

I've studied your "current prevailing theories" long ago and recently.
If I agreed with them I would not be posting original content. I would
be regurgitating the "party line" like you and adding no new thought
or information to the discussion (like you).

>Of course you must also gain the knowledge that these theories
>WILL change over time as new evidence and understanding is found.
>
>Now if you continue to pick choice 1. I will continue to suggest your
>posts are off topic for sci.physics and should be in talk.religion.
>
>Make your choice and have a nice day.

I made my choice long ago and your demand that I make one of your
"choices" is just more abusive tripe. Please read the below message
carefully.



-----------------------------------------------------------------
This is my last post/reply on this subject so if you want the last
word, read no further. 

Please don't construe this as a sign of surrender or defeat. Let's
just consider it a temporary truce and we can resume the "debate"
later on another thread/topic.
Feel free to add any number of additional posts below. This is just a
notice that I will not read them. I'm sure any wider audience that may
be interested will be highly entertained as you "vanquish" me in my
absence (lol).
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Strickland			Reston, VA
---------------------------------------------------

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594635

Michael J.  Strickland wrote:

> Do you know any physicists that don't believe in the fundamental
> theorems of algebra or calculus?

Yes.  BECAUSE IT IS _NOT_ A MATTER OF BELIEF!

[I am beginning to understand Tom Roberts here – maybe the all-caps
format is the only one that gets through your thick skull.]

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594644

Thomas 
Nits are small.
Stand back a little.
We're swinging at bigger things.

I'm saying that both galaxies and
atoms are composed of equal amounts
of opposite stuff.

With atoms, it is the up and down electron.
With galaxies it is matter-arm/antimatter-arm.

Odd said, "What about odd-numbered arms?"

We look, and voila!, three-armed galaxies
are rare!
Why? Because the two similar arms
would merge.
Comment on that, TPE, not whether you
believe in virtual fundaments 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web