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 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 09:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <00db6cb1-920f-40e7-85b7-31124bc64728@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #544794 |
The galaxy has a period: ~10^16 seconds The electron has a period: ~10^-16 seconds ------------ John has a period too. Plug it up Bitch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 09:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <40b604c5-addc-42e8-8aec-a88207907605@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #544794 |
Anyway- the REAL leap, once you allow for smaller-scale atoms (that make up subatomic particles and electrons), is when you realize that all these smaller-scale atoms must be involved in all the radiative processes that OUR atoms are!!! There are huge amounts of MUCH higher-frequency radiations at a MUCH smaller scale. So, there are energies transferring at frequencies too high for us to perceive. How much? Where?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 18:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n73gsh$g7p$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #544794 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >There are no "solid " objects, Michael. >Didn't you get the memo? >The galaxy has a period: ~10^16 seconds How can the galaxy have a period of 10^16 seconds when it doesn't rotate as a solid object? (and you seem to agree it's not a solid object) Some stars near SGR A* take only a few years to orbit. >The galaxy has a period: ~10^16 seconds >The electron has a period: ~10^-16 seconds >Difference: 10^32 >The galaxy has a diameter: ~10^22 m >The atom has a diameter:~10^-10m >Difference: 10^32 So you believe you found two ratios with near equal values. So what? (and which galaxy, and which atom? They're all different)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 13:59 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <174a82a1-bf3b-4a4f-861a-b27f324f6311@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #544822 |
Have you heard of a "cosmic year", Michael? 225 million years. The time it takes the (non-solid) Milky Way to rotate al the way back to where we are. Yes, some things will have changed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 23:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n743ok$hgc$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #544883 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >Have you heard of a "cosmic year", Michael? Yes. >225 million years. >The time it takes the (non-solid) Milky Way >to rotate al the way back to where we are. No, it is the time it takes the SUN to revolve around the center of the Milky Way. Other stars take more or less time, depending on their exact orbit. It's like a whirlpool, the center circles more times than the outer edges.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 17:41 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f9055a51-546f-41e9-8655-8c16886c5582@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #544930 |
Michael: stars take more or less time, depending on their exact orbit. It's like a whirlpool, the center circles more times than the " Yes, I like that because it fits with the BH extreme spin idea. But how do the arms remain contiguous? I know- you say they don't, but all spiral galaxies have them, so they must.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 18:20 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7d73b4b9-892d-4fe3-8130-7b5af96bf682@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #544956 |
Galactic rotation curve: as one goes further from centre , instead of falling off in speed, stars maintain or increase their speeds. So. The whole disc is turning
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 03:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n74gia$ge6$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #544966 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >Galactic rotation curve: >as one goes further from centre , >instead of falling off in speed, >stars maintain or increase their speeds. >So. >The whole disc is turning No. The SPEED of the individual stars is about the same, but remember stars farther out have a longer distance to travel to make one orbit, so the disk does not rotate as a unit. The orbital period is proportional to its distance from the center. One of the puzzles of science is _why_ the star speed is about the same everywhere rather than getting slower as you go further out (like our solar system), this is why many scientists believe in dark matter. A certain distribution of invisible mass produces the obverved orbital periods.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 20:19 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8b8e3efc-a0f0-41bf-ac6b-879fedde4952@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #544978 |
On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 7:33:40 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote: > No. The SPEED of the individual stars is about the same, but remember > stars farther out have a longer distance to travel to make one orbit, so > the disk does not rotate as a unit. The orbital period is proportional > to its distance from the center. > > One of the puzzles of science is _why_ the star speed is about the same > everywhere rather than getting slower as you go further out (like our > solar system), this is why many scientists believe in dark matter. > A certain distribution of invisible mass produces the obverved orbital > periods. It is a delicious puzzle, isn't it? I look forward to the day when more light is cast on a possible solution to this puzzle. \Paul A
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 03:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2bc1bd2b-94d0-4a05-a9cf-f804922fdf15@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #544978 |
One of the puzzles of science is _why_ the star speed is about the same everywhere rather than getting slower as you go further out (like our solar system), this is why many scientists believe in dark matter. A certain distribution of invisible mass produces the obverved orbital periods. ------------- Another puzzle is the relationship between the M-sigma of a galaxy and the mass of that galaxy's smbh. John. These are REAL science questions. You won't find the answers by believing in some fucked up 'fractal' bullshit. The universe of the real is far more amazing than any fairy tale fractal universe.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 17:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <DwAly.156565$Gc6.12640@fx08.iad> |
| In reply to | #545022 |
On 01/13/2016 06:00 AM, HVAC wrote:
>
> One of the puzzles of science is _why_ the star speed is about the same
> everywhere rather than getting slower as you go further out (like our
> solar system), this is why many scientists believe in dark matter.
> A certain distribution of invisible mass produces the obverved orbital
> periods.
> -------------
>
> Another puzzle is the relationship between the M-sigma of a galaxy and the mass of that galaxy's smbh.
>
> John. These are REAL science questions. You won't find the answers by believing in some fucked up 'fractal' bullshit.
>
> The universe of the real is far more amazing than any fairy tale fractal universe.
John, HVAC believes in black holes, Astrology, Big Bang, ghosts and
other fantasies, but doesn't know enough to figure out that universe is
so large that the probability of other humanoid life is overwhelming.
All he says is "get off my lawn". He can't even IMAGINE the unseed
dimensions of the universe.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 03:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n74fl2$g7d$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #544956 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >Michael: stars take more or less time, depending on their exact >orbit. It's like a whirlpool, the center circles more times than the " >But how do the arms remain contiguous? >I know- you say they don't, but all spiral >galaxies have them, so they must. They're standing waves of density. The arms are high densities of stars and gases, and in between arms are low densities of stars and gases. Individual stars orbit through both regions, spending more time in high density regions. High density encourages formation of new stars, including bright, short-lived massive stars. These stars make the arms even brighter, and they burn out before they move through the low density regions, so they are dimmer. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_wave_theory There are animations there for you to play with. Notice you can have it so that the stars of the galaxy revolve around the center but the arms themselves are stationary. I've seen somewhere animations that mark one star as a separate color so you can see it enter and leave the arms as it orbits.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 07:53 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n75ktl$o53$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #544956 |
On 1/12/2016 7:41 PM, john wrote: > Michael: stars take more or less time, depending on their exact > orbit. It's like a whirlpool, the center circles more times than the " > > Yes, I like that because it fits with the > BH extreme spin idea. However, it also DOESN'T fit with your comparison of the period of the galaxy with that of the atom. Repeating the points made: - Our galaxy does not have a well-defined period. The inside turns with a faster period than the outside. So when you pick a number, on what basis do you pick whether to use the inside, the outside, or the number where the Earth happens to be? - Our galaxy has a completely different period than the periods of other galaxies. So when you cite the period of a galaxy, why did you choose ours? Choose any other galaxy, or choose any other radius in our galaxy other than where the Earth is, and your earth-atom ratio goes to hell in a handbasket. So.... still like the idea? And if the above points don't bother you, shouldn't it concern you that the SINGLE NUMERICAL FEATURE of your idea doesn't hold up? > But how do the arms remain contiguous? > I know- you say they don't, but all spiral > galaxies have them, so they must. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 06:55 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2d67487f-d0ca-43e9-b3d4-13e2d0fe8ce3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #545053 |
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: could that combination explain rotation curves? The star-arm is more and more curved closer and closer to the centre by the increased speed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 07:02 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8541c7b6-8571-4db4-b299-418cbe3d7207@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #545068 |
btw Odd: from "Space"- "This spinning of galaxies continues even after their formation. Our Milky Way galaxy is one of these spinning structures and its entire disc of stars, gas and dust is rotating at around 168 miles per second." Entire disc of stars, Odd. At 168 miles per second. Which part? The edge?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 09:54 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n75rv5$163l$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #545070 |
On 1/13/2016 9:02 AM, john wrote: > btw Odd: > from "Space"- > "This spinning of galaxies continues even after their formation. Our Milky Way galaxy > is one of these spinning structures and its entire disc of stars, gas and dust is rotating > at around 168 miles per second." > > Entire disc of stars, Odd. > At 168 miles per second. > Which part? > The edge? > See, John, this is what you get from reading cartoon versions of science materials. They say things like that and you just run with them without doing any further work to see what it can mean. To you, that one number means the whole galaxy is rotating together at a common speed, like a disc. Except a disc doesn't spin at one speed either. The inside of a spinning disc has a different speed in miles per hour than the outside of a disc. http://fivecrow.com/uploads/3/5/5/4/3554419/7597082_orig.jpg Except the galaxy doesn't rotate together as a disk, either. The inside completes a revolution in a shorter period of time than the outside, which is completely different than a disc. So maybe the problem, John, just maybe, is your ridiculous choice of reading materials. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 16:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n75u5k$a4g$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #545083 |
Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes: >On 1/13/2016 9:02 AM, john wrote: >> btw Odd: >> from "Space"- >> "This spinning of galaxies continues even after their formation. Our Milky Way galaxy >> is one of these spinning structures and its entire disc of stars, gas and dust is rotating >> at around 168 miles per second." >> >> Entire disc of stars, Odd. >> At 168 miles per second. >> Which part? >> The edge? >> >See, John, this is what you get from reading cartoon versions of science >materials. They say things like that and you just run with them without >doing any further work to see what it can mean. To you, that one number >means the whole galaxy is rotating together at a common speed, like a disc. >Except a disc doesn't spin at one speed either. The inside of a spinning >disc has a different speed in miles per hour than the outside of a disc. >http://fivecrow.com/uploads/3/5/5/4/3554419/7597082_orig.jpg >Except the galaxy doesn't rotate together as a disk, either. The inside >completes a revolution in a shorter period of time than the outside, >which is completely different than a disc. >So maybe the problem, John, just maybe, is your ridiculous choice of >reading materials. Yeah, John doesn't realize the consequences of what he wrote. In most spiral galaxies, away from the center, the stars all have approximately the same speed. However, a star further from the center has a longer trip around the center so it takes longer to go around the center. If Star B is twice as far from the center as Star A, and both travel at the same speed, Star A goes around the center twice in the time it takes Star B to go around once. As a consequence, a galaxy does NOT rotate as a unit like a disk, and it makes no sense to say that such a galaxy rotates once in X million years. On the other hand, a point on the outside of a rotating disk moves faster than a point near the center, with the speed being proportional to the distance from the center. A star further from the center of a galaxy "should" move _slower_ than one near the center, like the Solar System planets. That they move at about the same speed means there is additional mass in the galaxy that we can't see, "dark matter" of some sort.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 11:01 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n75vtt$1dmm$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #545090 |
On 1/13/2016 10:31 AM, Michael Moroney wrote: > A star further from the center of a galaxy "should" move_slower_ than > one near the center, like the Solar System planets. That they move at > about the same speed means there is additional mass in the galaxy that we > can't see, "dark matter" of some sort. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8aBZZnv6y8 John, please note how many times Venus goes around for every one time Uranus goes around. Does that look like a spinning disc like you? Isn't it true that for a spinning disc, every point on the disc goes around once in the same interval of time? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 11:04 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <000300ac-3724-4327-86e6-8cbe6a50d6c4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #545095 |
Odd How have you not been hit by a bus? "I don't know why you keep bringing up too small" Google " fractal "
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 13:25 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n768bc$1vnh$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #545130 |
On 1/13/2016 1:04 PM, john wrote: > Odd > How have you not been hit by a bus? > "I don't know why you keep bringing up too small" > > Google " fractal " > But you keep insisting that dark matter must be too small and THAT'S WHY it only interacts gravitationally. But that doesn't follow. It's like saying mice are lizards and THAT'S WHY they have four legs. First of all, a lot of mammals have four legs, so being a reptile isn't the reason for having four legs. Secondly, mice aren't reptiles. So dark matter doesn't need to be small to interact only gravitationally. Secondly, there's no reason to believe that dark matter is very small. Finally, you say you believe it's small because you believe the universe is fractal with a repeating scale pattern of 10^31. But this statement is based on the orbital period of ONE KIND of atom and the orbital period of ONE PLACE in ONE PARTICULAR galaxy, and doesn't hold up for anywhere else in the same galaxy or for any other galaxy for that matter. And so your fractal belief is not really believable anyway. Capiche? And you say *I'm* the one that is lucky to not be hit by a bus? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web