Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #590892 > unrolled thread
| Started by | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-07-26 21:25 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-07-29 12:04 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 97 — 9 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 21:25 -0700
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 07:49 -0500
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-27 13:42 +0000
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 07:26 -0700
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 09:29 -0500
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-27 15:08 +0000
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 10:37 -0700
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 12:04 -0700
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-27 20:48 +0000
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 05:04 -0700
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 07:12 -0700
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom B Gates <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-07-28 19:43 -0400
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-28 14:16 +0000
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 09:35 -0500
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 09:43 -0700
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-28 18:02 +0000
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 14:27 -0500
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 14:28 -0700
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-29 05:20 +0000
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 06:30 -0700
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-29 15:18 +0000
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 08:23 -0700
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 10:49 -0500
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-29 18:12 +0000
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom brandonahenley9@gmail.com - 2016-07-29 12:08 -0700
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 19:37 -0700
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-30 05:52 +0000
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 05:07 -0700
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-07-30 17:12 -0400
Processes that _consume_ energy. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 11:57 -0700
Processes that _consume_ energy. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 12:19 -0700
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-05 19:51 +0000
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 13:01 -0700
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 15:36 -0500
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 15:28 -0700
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 18:36 -0500
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-06 01:18 +0000
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 20:45 -0700
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-06 13:49 +0000
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-06 07:05 -0700
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-06 11:38 -0700
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-06 11:51 -0700
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-06 11:59 -0700
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-06 22:31 +0000
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-08-06 16:09 -0700
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-07 00:01 +0000
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-06 17:10 -0700
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-07 05:15 +0000
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 05:38 -0700
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 06:23 -0700
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-07 22:44 +0000
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 16:58 -0700
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-08 01:48 +0000
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 19:03 -0700
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-08 03:58 +0000
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 00:57 -0700
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 07:54 -0700
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-08 15:24 +0000
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-08 15:15 +0000
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 10:29 -0500
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 14:47 -0700
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 17:13 -0500
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-08 19:13 -0400
waves-ies noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 13:24 -0700
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-07 13:24 +0000
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 06:32 -0700
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 06:45 -0700
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 09:01 -0500
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 08:05 -0700
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 13:30 -0500
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 13:32 -0700
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 10:19 -0500
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-07 22:24 +0000
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-08 18:00 -0400
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 15:07 -0700
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-06 23:10 +0000
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-06 01:00 +0000
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 15:16 -0500
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-05 16:12 -0400
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 13:32 -0700
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-05 19:23 -0400
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 12:48 -0500
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 12:54 -0500
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 13:21 -0500
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-31 23:01 +0000
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 06:26 -0700
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 08:54 -0500
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-01 14:32 +0000
waves alfvenic, slow, fast, nedium noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 15:47 -0700
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 09:06 -0500
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-27 19:05 +0000
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 14:22 -0500
dictions of pre-that-and-this noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 17:22 -0700
Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 07:04 -0700
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom B Gates <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-07-28 19:39 -0400
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 19:12 -0700
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-07-29 12:04 -0700
Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-26 21:25 -0700 |
| Subject | Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom |
| Message-ID | <7c04152c-8bcd-4cf1-8725-9199418c30fb@googlegroups.com> |
1. Galaxies are precessing. Not only are
they precessing, but they are doing so
TWICE as fast as they are rotating.
Just ONE of the observations that
bear this out is here, in
Wikipedia, at
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_curve
"The rotation curves of spiral galaxies are asymmetric. The observational data from each side of a galaxy are generally averaged. Rotation curve asymmetry appears to be normal rather than exceptional.[2]"
Precession of the disc is why this is.
2 Galaxies are made from antimatter arms
and matter arms, as equally-proportioned
as possible.
No citation- oh yeah, me.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-27 07:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nnaak7$2oe$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #590892 |
On 7/26/2016 11:25 PM, john wrote: > 1. Galaxies are precessing. Not only are > they precessing, but they are doing so > TWICE as fast as they are rotating. > > Just ONE of the observations that > bear this out is here, in > Wikipedia, at > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_curve > > "The rotation curves of spiral galaxies are asymmetric. The observational data from > each side of a galaxy are generally averaged. Rotation curve asymmetry appears to be > normal rather than exceptional.[2]" No evidence of the claimed factor of two. > > Precession of the disc is why this is. > > 2 Galaxies are made from antimatter arms > and matter arms, as equally-proportioned > as possible. > No citation- oh yeah, me. > Plenty of counter evidence against this. Observational evidence trumps ideas, every single time. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-27 13:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nnados$79c$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #590892 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >1. Galaxies are precessing. Not only are > they precessing, but they are doing so > TWICE as fast as they are rotating. And your evidence is....? (and no, asymmetric rotation curves is not sufficient. It can just as easily be explained by asymmetric dark matter distribution) And your explanation of the violation of angular momentum that this would require is...? Your explanation of the enormous torque needed to cause them to precess is....? Your explanation of what holds the disk together in spite of these amazing torques is....? Flunk. >2 Galaxies are made from antimatter arms > and matter arms, as equally-proportioned > as possible. > No citation- oh yeah, me. And your explanation of the lack of 511 keV radiation as electrons and positrons annihilate each other is....? And the composition of the arms of 3 arm spiral galaxies is....? Double flunk. And your "no citation" means that deep down inside, you *know* it's all bullshit. But your OCD forces you to spew this crap, again and again. Of course, you will never address any of these issues. At most, you'll go silent for a while and then repeat your obsession with precessing spinny things. Observation trumps theory, every single time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-27 07:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b59344be-0e4f-4dda-bf63-49f9961b1b3c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #590915 |
Michael says " Your explanation of the enormous torque needed to cause them to precess is....? " YOUR explanation of the enormous torque needed to make them ROTATE is? It takes no torque at all in the special cases where the precession is a WHOLE NUMBER times the rotation. Since every point in the matter finds itself back at the same place once every full rotation, all energy debts are cancelled wrt the precession. Prove this ain't so. Or go silent, like when I say that evidence of order at one size level proves order for them all
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-27 09:29 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nnaggg$dg1$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #590916 |
On 7/27/2016 9:26 AM, john wrote: > Michael says > " > Your explanation of the enormous torque needed to cause them to precess > is....? " > > YOUR explanation of the enormous > torque needed to make them ROTATE is? Rotation does not take torque, John. Precession does. This is freshman physics. > > It takes no torque at all in the special > cases where the precession is > a WHOLE NUMBER times the rotation. Reference? > Since every point in the matter finds > itself back at the same place once > every full rotation, all energy debts are cancelled > wrt the precession. Um.... no. > > Prove this ain't so. Or go silent, Go look at freshman physics. > like when I say that evidence of > order at one size level proves > order for them all > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-27 15:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nnaip1$cui$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #590916 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >Michael says >" >Your explanation of the enormous torque needed to cause them to precess >is....? " >YOUR explanation of the enormous >torque needed to make them ROTATE is? You need to learn simple mechanics. No torque needed to keep something rotating at a constant angular momentum. The ordinary laws of gravity and the laws of conservation of angular momentum is what's needed to explain it. Meanwhile, a precessing spinny thing starts spinning in one plane but now precessing it requires the torque to produce an angular acceleration to change the _direction_ of the rotation, and thus the angular momentum. Remember, angular momentum is a conserved quantity. >It takes no torque at all in the special >cases where the precession is >a WHOLE NUMBER times the rotation. That is so very, very wrong. Pulling crap like that from your ass is no way to do physics. Simple mechanics: T = Ia where T is the torque, I is the moment of inertia and a is the angular acceleration. In the case of your precession obsession, a is an angular acceleration at right angles to the rotational axis. >Since every point in the matter finds >itself back at the same place once >every full rotation, all energy debts are cancelled >wrt the precession. Not sufficient. You need a torque that would go in a cycle, first in the x direction, then in the y direction, then -x, then -y, then x... It doesn't matter if over a cycle the sum is zero. You need a varying torque over each cycle! Where does this torque come from? What about the violation of angular momentum? You have no answer! >Prove this ain't so. Or go silent, See above. Or prove it for yourself. Get a gyroscope, get it spinning and try to precess it. Feel the force? That is its opposition to you applying a torque to it to get it rotating in a different direction when you try to precess it. Since you are obsessed with spinny things, I figure you must have a dozen or two gyroscopes to play with. [p.s. As much as you hate them, Big Pharma has some very good medicines to help with your OCD. You should talk to your doctor about it. No, I did NOT say to go visit Little Pharma!!!] >like when I say that evidence of >order at one size level proves >order for them all You never made any such proof!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-27 10:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <30dd3629-ad80-4fcd-a802-cdef29db8a0f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #590918 |
Michael It's like Calculus: at the zero point of the rotation, it takes zero to include precession. Add incrementally. You don't rotate it right up first and then try to precess it! Of course that doesn't work
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-27 12:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8940e0db-9e8c-439d-a2d9-4054ec6c3fa3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #590947 |
Michael Okay. No torque to spin the disc? How much to stop it? The rotation/precession is 1/2.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-27 20:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nnb6mu$n7r$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #590965 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >Michael >Okay. >No torque to spin the disc? No torque to keep it spinning. Elementary mechanics. >How much to stop it? L=Iw where L is the angular momentum, I=moment of inertia and w is the rotation rate. However since a galaxy does not rotate as a unit, you'll have to integrate over subsections rotating at the same rate. T=Ia where T is the torque, I=moment of inertia and a is the angular acceleration. Again, a will vary as different sections would need to be slowed different amounts. You do the math. >The rotation/precession is 1/2. What precession? Where does the alleged torque to cause it to precess come from? Explain the nonconservation of angular momentum involved, as it precesses through one rotation. You can't. I noticed you ignored all the previous times I asked these.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-28 05:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b31c8fe2-a7c8-43ab-8aab-61a8c4861fd4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #590983 |
Michael repeated "No torque to keep it spinning. " Okay, Michael. How much torque was required to GET it spinning? Where did THAT torque come from? The question isn't "how was it done?", the question is "what is it doing?",
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-28 07:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dafeeaf5-5a83-4fa7-ab7d-f0b958401c45@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #591024 |
john Michael repeated "No torque to keep it spinning. " Okay, Michael. How much torque was required to GET it spinning? Where did THAT torque come from? The question isn't "how was it done?", the question is "what is it doing?", ------------ I wrote a paper on the formation of galaxies in the early universe. You should look at the work in this area. It's fascinating stuff. Computer modeling has added an entirely new dimension. Or you and BJ can talk about intelligent design
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | B Gates <nobodyxx@gmail> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-28 19:43 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <579a98a0$0$31215$c3e8da3$a9097924@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #591030 |
On 07/28/2016 10:12 AM, HVAC wrote: > john Michael repeated > > "No torque to keep it spinning. " > > Okay, Michael. How much torque was required to GET it spinning? Where > did THAT torque come from? > > The question isn't "how was it done?", the question is "what is it > doing?", ------------ > > I wrote a paper on the formation of galaxies in the early universe. > You should look at the work in this area. It's fascinating stuff. > Computer modeling has added an entirely new dimension. > > Or you and BJ can talk about intelligent design > While cosmology fantasy seems right up HVAC's imaginary alley, the chances of him writing a paper, let alone getting an organization to print it are well below zero. You think because he says something that makes it true? That is what he believes. The rest of us are still trying to find his college and that book on differential geometry (he could only spell that correctly because he copied it from my post) he supposedly co-wrote! Co-wrote! Bwahahahahaha! WHAT A LOSER!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-28 14:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nnd443$ggg$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #591024 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >Michael repeated >"No torque to keep it spinning. " >Okay, Michael. How much torque was >required to GET it spinning? >Where did THAT torque come from? The angular momentum came from the net angular momentum of the clouds it formed from. Off-center collisions/encounters can impart angular momentum to various objects within a system, if you are about to ask where _that_ came from. Of course the net angular momentum of the system doesn't change when this happens. Anyway, my point is that once it got spinning, nothing is necessary to _keep_ it spinning. Meanwhile your precessing spinny things need a constantly varying torque, first in the +x, then to +y, then -x, then -y over one complete cycle. But to what purpose? What problems do precessing spinny things solve, other than feeding your ravenous OCD? >The question isn't "how was it done?", >the question is "what is it doing?", Well, it ain't precessing. That much is obvious. At least not without violating laws of physics. So are you going to tell us where this mysterious torque comes from and why the laws of conservation of angular momentum are no longer valid? I note you ignored this question yet again.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-28 09:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nnd584$7g1$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #591024 |
On 7/28/2016 7:04 AM, john wrote: > Michael repeated > > "No torque to keep it spinning. " > > Okay, Michael. How much torque was > required to GET it spinning? > Where did THAT torque come from? John, you may not understand this, but cars passing each other in opposite lanes on a straight stretch of highway have angular momentum ALREADY, even though the cars are traveling straight. Now, if there were some force of attraction between them, like a bungee cord strung between them, they would end up rotating around each other, and there has been NO TORQUE applied. The angular momentum after the bungee pull and the onset of rotation is the SAME as the angular momentum before the bungee connects and the cars are traveling straight. This is all freshman physics. And you might imagine how this would apply to galaxy formation. > > The question isn't "how was it done?", > the question is "what is it doing?", > > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-28 09:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9c98091c-9e0b-480c-8619-ed53e8b97458@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #591036 |
So- even though there are numerous indications that galaxies are precessing, because of YOUR laws of physics you prefer to look for dark matter? Wouldn't a lot of energy be stored in such precession?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-28 18:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nndhb5$9kc$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #591043 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >So- even though there are numerous >indications that galaxies are precessing, I have yet to see *ANY* such "indications"! Except indications of OCD. >because of YOUR laws of physics THE (not my) laws of physics state precession violates the conservation of angular momentum. Without a REAL good explanation, precession of galaxies is simply a non-starter. So, are you EVER going to answer my questions? Where does this enormous torque/angular momentum that precesses galaxies come from? Explain the non-conservation of angular momentum precession requires. What holds the precessing disks together? And Why Precession? It explains nothing, and its only use is to fuel your OCD. >Wouldn't a lot of energy be stored in >such precession? In whatever system provides the torque, maybe. If it actually existed, which is extremely unlikely.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-28 14:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nndma9$1231$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #591043 |
On 7/28/2016 11:43 AM, john wrote: > So- even though there are numerous > indications that galaxies are precessing, I really don't think there are clear indications that galaxies are precessing as opposed to something else going on. > because of YOUR laws of physics THE laws of physics. Conservation of angular momentum has been known and accepted since the middle 1600s. It is now 2016, by the way. Now, are you suggesting that you would RATHER say that conservation of angular momentum does NOT hold just so that galactic precession is now POSSIBLE (even though not demonstrated), just so that dark matter would not be needed? Doesn't that seem like a bit of a reach? > you prefer to look for dark matter? > Wouldn't a lot of energy be stored in > such precession? > Note that precession would not account for the anomalies of the galactic rotation curves. Or at least you have done no calculation that shows that precession WOULD explain the anomaly. So what exactly does galactic precession buy us, other than that you like the way the motion looks? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-28 14:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cbe3542c-9632-49a3-bbee-27d0a0473af4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #591062 |
So Michael and Odd HOW does something GET rotating without applying torque? AND how fast does something need to be rotating before you can precess it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-29 05:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nnep31$tca$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #591075 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >So >Michael and Odd >HOW does something GET rotating >without applying torque? Asked and answered. >AND >how fast does something need to be >rotating before you can precess it? Any speed, but the higher rhe speed the more torque/angular momentum you'll need to do that. Have you made an appointment with a doctor regarding that OCD yet?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-29 06:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fa248b93-e063-426d-8802-5b76dfde7a92@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #591120 |
Michael ">HOW does something GET rotating >without applying torque? Asked and answered. " Sorry- what is your answer here?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web