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 | 17 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 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-05 19:23 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. |
| Message-ID | <57a51fe1$0$63517$b1db1813$145976f0@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #592007 |
On 8/5/2016 4:32 PM, HVAC wrote: > BJ quacked > Energy doesn't run out because God is constantly supplying it! :-) > ------------ > > I don't believe in God as do you. You posit an invisible man who supplies us as if we were fish in a bowl. I disagree. > > > HVAC doesn't believe in God so he believes that for ghosts to have > persistence of consciousness, energy must never run out...ever! > -------- > > I don't believe in ghosts as do you. If ghosts existed, as you believe, the entire physical nature of the universe would be upended. You may be convinced but no one in the field of science... Any science, agrees with you. You're alone. You're the crazy rat running around in the shithouse. > > Right right? > Folks, one more fine example what what HVAC calls an "education in science". To him the only "science" he knows is making fun of "god" and pretending other people believe in ghosts. He wants so deperately to be loved and admired but there is even less than Reber gets. HVAC is the gay loser.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-30 12:48 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nnip9o$1ooi$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #591239 |
On 7/29/2016 9:37 PM, john wrote: > The only way for stuff in atoms and > galaxies to NOT run out of energy > is for everything to run the > shortest possible repeating > pathways. That's an interesting law you just made up. Care to offer an argument for this law you just made up? > This is accomplished with the > 1 rotation/2 precession standing > wave. > The torque that Michael and Odd are > so worried about only needs to > happen once- to both rotate and > precess- That is an incorrect statement. Remove the torque from a precessing system and it will stop precessing. This is something you can do in your garage. > after which you have > a standing wave that feeds on itself > and is extremely permanent- an atom. > > Analyze the star spectra with disc > precession in mind, and see what the > computer thinks > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-30 12:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nnipl0$1ptg$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #591239 |
On 7/29/2016 9:37 PM, john wrote: > The only way for stuff in atoms and > galaxies to NOT run out of energy > is for everything to run the > shortest possible repeating > pathways. > This is accomplished with the > 1 rotation/2 precession standing > wave. > The torque that Michael and Odd are > so worried about only needs to > happen once- to both rotate and > precess- after which you have > a standing wave that feeds on itself > and is extremely permanent- an atom. > > Analyze the star spectra with disc > precession in mind, and see what the > computer thinks > I think it's fascinating how you, John, believe it is better to have an original thought about physics that flies in the face of all known laws of physics, than it is to have an original thought that is consistent with the laws of physics. To you, apparently, even FAMILIARITY with those laws of physics is an encumbrance and a hindrance to creative thought, and so should be avoided. After all, without consideration or even knowledge of any laws of physics, one could solve all the world's problems with original ideas about antigravity drives, perpetual motion machines, spontaneous production of electric charge, precognition, infinitely rigid materials, and alchemy. And who should stand in the path of that!? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-30 13:21 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nnir81$1sb2$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #591282 |
On 7/30/2016 12:54 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/29/2016 9:37 PM, john wrote: >> The only way for stuff in atoms and >> galaxies to NOT run out of energy >> is for everything to run the >> shortest possible repeating >> pathways. >> This is accomplished with the >> 1 rotation/2 precession standing >> wave. >> The torque that Michael and Odd are >> so worried about only needs to >> happen once- to both rotate and >> precess- after which you have >> a standing wave that feeds on itself >> and is extremely permanent- an atom. >> >> Analyze the star spectra with disc >> precession in mind, and see what the >> computer thinks >> > > I think it's fascinating how you, John, believe it is better to have an > original thought about physics that flies in the face of all known laws > of physics, than it is to have an original thought that is consistent > with the laws of physics. To you, apparently, even FAMILIARITY with > those laws of physics is an encumbrance and a hindrance to creative > thought, and so should be avoided. > > After all, without consideration or even knowledge of any laws of > physics, one could solve all the world's problems with original ideas > about antigravity drives, perpetual motion machines, spontaneous > production of electric charge, precognition, infinitely rigid materials, > and alchemy. And who should stand in the path of that!? > As a matter of interest, John, I believe you have been estimated to rank highly with a value of 1.22 Megadingles. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-31 23:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nnlvvq$k6e$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #591284 |
Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes: >On 7/30/2016 12:54 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/29/2016 9:37 PM, john wrote: >>> The torque that Michael and Odd are >>> so worried about only needs to >>> happen once- to both rotate and >>> precess- after which you have >>> a standing wave that feeds on itself >>> and is extremely permanent- an atom. So John, you are so obsessed with your precessing spinny things that you now feel the need to invent new laws of physics that would allow them to exist? Don't you think it's better to talk to your doctor instead? >As a matter of interest, John, I believe you have been estimated to rank >highly with a value of 1.22 Megadingles. Megadingle...as a measure of the crackedness of one's pot...that's good. Named for the original anti-relativity crank. But we still need an "einstein" unit. Preferably for something that would drive anti-relativity cranks nuts, like if they used "einstein" instead of gamma in length contraction equations. Or something that gets used all the time, for example if they replaced "volt" with "einstein" so people would talk of a 12 einstein car battery...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-01 06:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7cdba003-75be-4454-afbc-8053cbe4cc66@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #591437 |
Hey 'tards- At least I don't believe in "dark matter" conveniently secreted wherever it's needed!! Describe your "dark matter". Can it fly?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-01 08:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nnnka1$c6d$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #591496 |
On 8/1/2016 8:26 AM, john wrote: > Hey 'tards- > At least I don't believe According to John, ANYTHING is better than believing in dark matter. Why believe in something new that's never been seen before, when you can believe in JOHN'S something new that's never been seen before AND which violates known physical laws?? > in "dark matter" conveniently > secreted wherever it's needed!! Remember when neutrinos were things that had never been detected before, and were hypothesized to exist to conveniently preserve energy conservation and angular momentum conservation? And then they turned out to be really there! So consider the possibility, John, that the dark matter hypothesis is like where the neutrino hypothesis was 50 years ago. > Describe your "dark matter". Can it fly? > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-01 14:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nnnmhi$vm$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #591496 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> tarded: >Hey 'tards- Talking to yourself? And a mouse in your pocket? >At least I don't believe >in "dark matter" conveniently >secreted wherever it's needed!! Still haven't found a five year old to explain "invisible heavy stuff" to you yet? >Describe your "dark matter". Can it fly? It interacts gravitationally. It does not interact electromagnetically. In other words, "invisible heavy stuff". That's about all we know about it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-01 15:47 -0700 |
| Subject | waves alfvenic, slow, fast, nedium |
| Message-ID | <171609b7-d4c9-41a1-ac6b-8c12bf9cba6a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #591500 |
it appears to be an element of EinsteinmaniA, the old idea that gravity is principle force, but I think that Alfven put that away, in the 'nine-sixties > Still haven't found a five year old to explain "invisible heavy stuff" to you yet? > > >Describe your "dark matter". Can it fly? > > It interacts gravitationally. It does not interact electromagnetically. > In other words, "invisible heavy stuff". That's about all we know about it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-29 09:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nnfntu$1m7s$5@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #591075 |
On 7/28/2016 4:28 PM, john wrote: > So > Michael and Odd > HOW does something GET rotating > without applying torque? John, I've already answered this with the example of cars driving past each other on the highway and the bungee cord. In this case, there's an onset of rotation with NO torque applied (angular momentum is conserved). Now for galaxies, you can do the following swaps: passing cars --> passing gas clouds or passing stars bungee cord --> gravity > AND > how fast does something need to be > rotating before you can precess it? > Speed has nothing to do with it. To get something precessing, you need a torque. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-27 19:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nnb0lu$7mr$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #590947 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >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 Gibberish. It is rotating and precessing at the same time. The rotation (angular momentum) will continue in the same plane forever unless a torque is applied. (Conservation of angular momentum) Conversely, if a torque is applied the rotation (angular momentum) will change (either rotational speed or direction of rotational axis). So tell us. Where does this enormous torque come from???? Why do you believe angular momentum conservation is violated??? For that matter, what use is this precession, anyway? What does it supposedly prove, what problem does it allegedly solve? Seems rather useless to me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-28 14:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nndm1v$11lc$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #590947 |
On 7/27/2016 12:37 PM, john wrote: > 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 > John, you're talking out your ass. Basic physics: Rotation does not require torque. Precession requires torque. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-27 17:22 -0700 |
| Subject | dictions of pre-that-and-this |
| Message-ID | <3252126a-42f5-411d-9785-67f5fb5714ea@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #590915 |
touche', whether the turtle is not lying, or if hje does not or does define his precessionalities > 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 | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-28 07:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e394f9d7-da63-451d-b87b-c72a2dbe5826@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #590892 |
john
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.
------------
Things John and BJ have in common. (Partial list)
Both dumb as a stump
Both believe in ghosts
Both have 'experimented' with homosexuality
Both believe in esp
Both believe in some fucked up version of god
Both hate America
Both believe in the 9/11 conspiracy
Both hate science
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | B Gates <nobodyxx@gmail> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-28 19:39 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <579a97ac$0$62973$c3e8da3$1cbc7475@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #591029 |
On 07/28/2016 10:04 AM, HVAC wrote: > john > 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. > ------------ > > Things John and BJ have in common. (Partial list) > > Both dumb as a stump > > Both believe in ghosts > > Both have 'experimented' with homosexuality > > Both believe in esp > > Both believe in some fucked up version of god > > Both hate America > > Both believe in the 9/11 conspiracy > > Both hate science > Yet another example of HVAC's amazing knowledge of science and astronomy. Is there anything he does not know? HVAC doesn't hate science. He doesn't know enough about it to decide one way or the other. He's a gay loser.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-28 19:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <96b4a93e-b907-4691-8ff7-99eebbbed07a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #591029 |
the veep at that time, September eleventh, '001, stOOd down the mormative Air Force flights to deal with it. what was that guy's name?... oh, yeah; trickieR Dick > "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. > Both believe in the 9/11 conspiracy > > Both hate science
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-29 12:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <201e923c-c63b-47bd-9ce4-ca83decbfe2d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #590892 |
On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 9:25:56 PM UTC-7, 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]" > > 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. There are no galaxies within the atom. Double-A
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web