Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #544442 > unrolled thread
| Started by | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-01-11 07:43 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-01-11 17:10 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 87 — 9 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
The Universe is a Reverse Fractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 07:43 -0800
The Universe is a Reverse Fractal HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 08:09 -0800
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 14:31 -0500
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 10:15 -0600
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 09:03 -0800
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 14:25 -0600
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 10:30 -0800
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 10:40 -0800
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 10:40 -0800
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 13:00 -0600
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 11:40 -0800
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 12:36 -0800
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 12:47 -0800
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 15:32 -0600
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 13:43 -0800
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 15:56 -0600
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 13:58 -0800
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 16:15 -0600
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-01-11 22:18 +0000
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 08:48 -0800
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 09:00 -0800
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 09:18 -0800
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-01-12 18:32 +0000
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 13:59 -0800
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-01-12 23:55 +0000
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 17:41 -0800
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 18:20 -0800
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-01-13 03:33 +0000
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-01-12 20:19 -0800
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-13 03:00 -0800
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-13 17:50 -0500
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-01-13 03:17 +0000
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-13 07:53 -0600
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-13 06:55 -0800
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-13 07:02 -0800
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-13 09:54 -0600
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-01-13 16:31 +0000
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-13 11:01 -0600
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-13 11:04 -0800
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-13 13:25 -0600
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-13 14:05 -0800
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-13 19:45 -0800
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-01-14 06:25 +0000
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 06:18 -0800
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 09:26 -0600
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-01-14 16:35 +0000
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 09:05 -0800
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-01-14 17:55 +0000
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 14:25 -0600
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 12:57 -0800
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 13:26 -0800
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 16:48 -0600
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 16:14 -0800
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal Michael Moroney <moroney@TheWorld.com> - 2016-01-15 03:01 +0000
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 19:25 -0800
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 10:52 -0600
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 09:07 -0600
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 07:12 -0800
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 08:52 -0800
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 09:36 -0800
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 12:00 -0600
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 19:18 -0800
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 02:26 -0800
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-17 15:23 -0600
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 11:44 -0600
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 16:45 -0600
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 08:20 -0600
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 06:36 -0800
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 06:45 -0800
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 07:13 -0800
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 12:41 -0500
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 09:30 -0600
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 07:46 -0800
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 07:55 -0800
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 14:21 -0600
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-01-14 16:20 +0000
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 14:19 -0600
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 14:20 -0600
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-01-13 15:05 +0000
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-13 09:09 -0600
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-13 07:45 -0800
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-13 10:00 -0600
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-13 08:37 -0800
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-01-13 16:46 +0000
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-13 10:58 -0600
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-13 07:40 -0800
Re: The Universe is a Reverse Fractal benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 17:10 -0500
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-15 12:00 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n7bc3q$bqm$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #545635 |
On 1/15/2016 11:36 AM, john wrote: > The Pointy Head crew laughing about > how some people require that real > things have volume and structure!!! > I'm dying rotfalmao > Laugh all you want, John. What's interesting is your phrase that you REQUIRE real things to have volume and structure. In other words, you are dictating to nature what properties all real things must have, rather than ASKING nature what properties should be attributed to all real things. So ask yourself in introspection: "What right do I, John Sefton, have to tell nature what properties all real things must possess? What makes me think that my assumptions about the world are must-have true?" -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-15 19:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <de8f8459-a0fd-4341-94c4-5bdf4aba69ec@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #545637 |
You're funny, Odd. I never quit being amazed by the galaxy/atom fractal idea. It's super-simple, but then when you need a medium, like for transmission of light or whatever, wham-bam- it's already there in the form of a sea of higher-frequency harmonics that are a product of the matter, itself. And I always think, "Well, that was obvious", but, still, it's hard to grasp all the ramifications right away
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-16 02:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <eb074da3-60f0-4f73-8f09-6384f972ed3f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #545780 |
I never quit being amazed by the galaxy/atom fractal idea. It's super-simple, but then when you need a medium, like for transmission of light or whatever, wham-bam- it's already there in the form of a sea of higher-frequency harmonics that are a product of the matter, itself. --------------- But we already have the medium. Space. It's like asking what is rippling when a pebble hits water. And not being satisfied with the answer 'water'. Your idea is simply a variation on the old story of "turtles all the way down".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-17 15:23 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n7h0nh$11qe$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #545780 |
On 1/15/2016 9:18 PM, john wrote: > You're funny, Odd. > > I never quit being amazed by the > galaxy/atom fractal idea. > It's super-simple, but then when you > need a medium, Why do you think a medium is needed for transmission? > like for transmission of > light or whatever, wham-bam- it's already > there in the form of a sea of > higher-frequency harmonics that are a > product of the matter, itself. > > And I always think, "Well, that was obvious", > but, still, it's hard to grasp all the ramifications > right away > Especially if you make assumptions like the necessity of a medium for transmission of energy. Then it's completely obvious. Except it's wrong. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-15 11:44 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n7bb5q$a06$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #545618 |
On 1/15/2016 9:12 AM, john wrote: > So > No structure or volume to MANY of the > components of the Standard Model. > > And NO-ONE has a problem with that > but me? > > Is that true, everyone? > I said that NOT EVERYONE believes what you believe. I'm sure there are a few people who think like you do and are also similarly enslaved by their assumptions about the world, and cannot for the life of them muster up a conception of things that breaks those assumptions. As for what you call MANY COMPONENTS of the Standard Model, it's pretty clear. 1. There are fundamental things that exist, and there are composites of those fundamental things that also exist. 2. Volume is a property of the things that are composites, and where volume COMES FROM in composites is explained. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 16:45 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n798eu$11a5$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #545466 |
On 1/14/2016 2:57 PM, john wrote: > No structure? > > Doesn't exist > Says who? Really. Do a little introspection and ask yourself how your brain got wrapped up around the axle about this imaginary "law". Is it a desire? Is it trying to make the world all understandable in a certain way you feel comfortable with? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 08:20 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n78ard$16v8$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #545257 |
On 1/13/2016 9:45 PM, john wrote: > Each Black Hole is the CENTER of a huge > whirlpool of smaller-scale fractal matter, or DM. > Stars made from our size matter are > carried along. > Since there is more attraction for other stars > than for the spinning DM medium, > it is the inter-star attraction that > flattens the rotation curve. > > Still no good? > OK, so let's see. You had an idea which didn't work, and it showed that you don't really understand what a black hole is. So rather than deciding to go back and read some stuff to find out what a black hole is, you just decided to completely change your idea until your ignorance of black holes no longer stands out? If you want to talk about BHs, John, what's the source of your resistance to learning something about them? I mean, really, what's holding you back? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 06:36 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <55b885e0-4442-4b7d-ad66-f88538431308@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #545330 |
Ok, so let's see. You had an idea which didn't work, and it showed that you don't really understand what a black hole is. So rather than deciding to go back and read some stuff to find out what a black hole is, you just decided to completely change your idea until your ignorance of black holes no longer stands out? ------------- John's approach to science is "let's run it up the flagpole and see who salutes". It's a well tested method here on sci.physics
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 06:45 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ec3e0544-4279-4faf-9ac8-5a63d3df6331@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #545330 |
Odd What's your problem? There are major flaws in the model that YOU accept- which isn't even a model, it's mathematical hand-waving- and you have no problem: oh, 96% of the mass is missing with our method? Must be exotic matter, probably also exotic energy. Don't forget the event horizon- you can't expect us to know what's in there! And that f-en cat!! Alive? Dead? WE don't f-en know!! How are WE supposed to know? Fuck. Just step off, Odd, if that's all you can do. And take all your fundamental particles with you- you say they have no volume- shouldn't be a problem.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 07:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e709388e-bfc2-4b0a-83a5-673257322613@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #545336 |
96% of the mass is missing with our method? Must be exotic matter, probably also exotic energy. ---------- First of all, nothing is missing. If it WAS missing we wouldn't know about it. And secondly, dark matter has absolute nothing to do with dark energy. Dark energy is simply a property of space.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 12:41 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <p5Rly.102198$hF6.20222@fx38.iad> |
| In reply to | #545342 |
On 01/14/2016 10:13 AM, HVAC wrote:
> 96% of the mass is missing with our
> method? Must be exotic matter, probably also exotic energy.
> ----------
>
> First of all, nothing is missing. If it WAS missing we wouldn't know about it.
>
> And secondly, dark matter has absolute nothing to do with dark energy.
>
> Dark energy is simply a property of space.
So is "space" aether with the property of dark energy or is space
"nothing at all" but you still say nothing has properties?
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 09:30 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n78ev0$1fr1$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #545336 |
On 1/14/2016 8:45 AM, john wrote: > Odd > What's your problem? > > There are major flaws in the model > that YOU accept- What flaws? Might want to list a few. > which isn't even a > model, it's mathematical hand-waving- > and you have no problem: I think we're just reiterating some confusion on your part about what a model is. To you a visual is a model. It is NOT what is meant by "model" by a physicist. Mathematics is a LANGUAGE, John. Physicists describe their model using that LANGUAGE. The fact that you do not speak that language does not turn the model into handwaving, it just means that you don't understand the language. You've complained that physicists should translate their language into something that you can absorb, but that's not a rational or realistic ask, and so why is that suddenly hand-waving? > oh, 96% of the mass is missing with our > method? Must be exotic matter, probably > also exotic energy. Why is this a flaw? > Don't forget the event > horizon- you can't expect us to know what's > in there! And that f-en cat!! Alive? Dead? > WE don't f-en know!! How are WE supposed > to know? And why is it a flaw to have a section of the universe that we cannot get information about? > Fuck. > Just step off, Odd, if that's all you can do. > And take all your fundamental particles > with you- you say they have no volume- > shouldn't be a problem. > Yes, why is having no volume a flaw? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 07:46 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <faf55448-3444-49bf-96a0-8130ed45734c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #545346 |
Odd: "Yes, why is having no volume a flaw? " Me: Wow.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 07:55 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a4f9b56a-5af7-4ecf-a955-f03b3df64ece@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #545350 |
Another cool thing about our matter being immersed in smaller and smaller versions of itself, is that it provides an aether for radiative transfer- for "fields", Odd.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 14:21 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n79006$hqe$7@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #545352 |
On 1/14/2016 9:55 AM, john wrote: > Another cool thing about our matter being > immersed in smaller and smaller versions > of itself, is that it provides an aether > for radiative transfer- for "fields", Odd. > And why is that a desirable thing? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 16:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n78hsb$oa6$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #545350 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >Odd: >"Yes, why is having no volume a flaw? " >Me: >Wow. Is that the best answer you can give? I'll give you a second chance to come up with a meaningful answer: Why is having no volume a flaw?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 14:19 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n78vsj$hqe$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #545350 |
On 1/14/2016 9:46 AM, john wrote: > Odd: > "Yes, why is having no volume a flaw?" > > Me: > Wow. > Doesn't answer the question, does it? I'm guessing that something having no volume is INCONCEIVABLE to you, and since you cannot conceive it, you call that illogical. So then the next question is, why do you think you can't CONCEIVE of it? Is it because you have certain expectations or assumptions about the world? Is it because you want things at all scales to be like what you see in everyday life? Introspection, John. It might lead you to new insights. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 14:20 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n78vtk$hqe$5@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #545187 |
On 1/13/2016 4:05 PM, john wrote: > So > You want DM to be energy organized > in a brand new way in order to be DM? > Smaller isn't good enough? > Why? > How? > DM doesn't need energy to be organized in a brand new way in order to be gravitationally interacting only. John, protons and neutrons (or quarks, you take your pick) interact with the strong interaction, the gravitational interaction, the electromagnetic interaction, and the weak interaction. Electrons, the other familiar component of atoms interact with the gravitational interaction, the electromagnetic interaction, and the weak interaction but not the strong interaction. No whole new way of energy organization is required to make electrons different in this way from protons and neutrons. You may have also heard of neutrinos, which interact with the gravitational and weak interactions, but not with the strong or electromagnetic interactions. No whole new way of energy organization is required to make neutrinos different in this way from protons and neutrons and electrons. Note also that neutrinos don't have smaller volume than electrons and electrons aren't smaller than quarks. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 15:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n75p4j$c73$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #545068 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >Let's look at BHs as TWO things- >a WHIRLPOOL of DM which is turning >really fast at the centre and progressively >slower at the edge >and an arm of stars immersed in >that whirlpool that has self-attraction: >could that combination explain rotation >curves? The star-arm is more and more >curved closer and closer to the centre >by the increased speed It looks like you didn't read (or understand) that wiki article I pointed out. That's the "windup" problem. If a galaxy behaved that way it would appear as being wound tighter and tighter so after only a few revolutions it wouldn't even resemble a spiral.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 09:09 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n75pau$10np$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #545068 |
On 1/13/2016 8:55 AM, john wrote: > Oh Odd- stow it > > Let's look at BHs as TWO things- > a WHIRLPOOL of DM which is turning > really fast at the centre and progressively > slower at the edge > and an arm of stars immersed in > that whirlpool that has self-attraction: You seem to be still confused about the event horizon. With black holes, there is a boundary called the event horizon. There is an Inside of that event horizon and there is an Outside of that event horizon. Anything on the inside of the event horizon is never going to come out or reach out or touch anything on the outside. Anything on the outside of the event horizon might or might not fall across the event horizon, but anything that does pass that event horizon or reach across the event horizon is never going to come outside of the event horizon. So you cannot have Dark Matter inside the event horizon reaching out and touching matter outside the event horizon. And you can't have "an arm of stars" immersed in that dark matter inside the event horizon. The stars inside the event horizon cannot grab the stars outside the event horizon. > could that combination explain rotation > curves? The star-arm is more and more > curved closer and closer to the centre > by the increased speed > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web