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

Groups > sci.physics > #600420 > unrolled thread

Re: Vortices in the subfractal

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Vortices in the subfractal edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-10-11 10:36 -0700
    Re: Vortices in the subfractal noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-10-11 12:35 -0700
    Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-10-11 12:43 -0700
      Re: Vortices in the subfractal moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-12 13:43 +0000
        Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 07:55 -0700
          Re: Vortices in the subfractal noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 11:32 -0700
          Re: Vortices in the subfractal moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-13 15:28 +0000
            Re: Vortices in the subfractal noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-10-13 10:28 -0700
      Re: Vortices in the subfractal edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-10-13 08:30 -0700

#600420 — Re: Vortices in the subfractal

On Friday, October 7, 2016 at 11:07:03 AM UTC-4, James McGinn wrote:
> On Friday, September 23, 2016 at 3:04:03 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > On 9/21/2016 10:27 AM, john wrote:
> > > Odd
> > > Dumb or not, electrons are
> > > no more "fundamental " or
> > > "point like" than anything else.
> > 
> > Where's the observational evidence of that?
> > Notice that this claim of yours is saying that the observational traits 
> > of electrons are false and are not showing the true nature of electrons.
> 
> You are so dumb, oddball.  Actually John is saying his theory
> describes what is observed.  And your inability to dispute that
> claim suggests he might be right.

John's can claim it all he likes, but he has presented NO experimental
evidence of any internal structure for the electron.

He is your perfect clone. Making unsupported claims is your trademark.
  
> 
> And you are so desperate you are putting words in his mouth.  
> 
> You church ladies don't understand science.  You just believe.

Lets see again Jim. Your experience in science is_____
(fill in the blank).

yeah, totally blank.

Ed

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#600441

yeah, t.m;
That is all of where, therein@iS

> > You are so dumb, oddball.  Actually John is saying his theory
> > describes what is observed.  And your inability to dispute that
> > claim suggests he might be right.
> 
> John's can claim it all he likes, but he has presented NO experimental
> evidence of any internal structure for the electron.
> 
> He is your perfect clone. Making unsupported claims is your trademark.

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

#600446

Ed said
"
John's can claim it all he likes, but he has presented NO experimental 
evidence of any internal structure for the electron. 
"
If a galaxy is the same as an atom,
then such is a given. One has allowed that reality
never goes to zero dimensions, and keeps being
divide up at periodic intervals.

Then, one looks for evidence that
galaxies precess, and there is plenty.
The most promising is that galactic
rotation curves are made by
averaging data from opposite sides
of the disc, because they have to-
because they are assymetric.

It should be trivial to not only prove
that this is because the disc is
precessing, but HOW FAST those
discs are precessing.
Wow.

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

#600565

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Ed said
>"
>John's can claim it all he likes, but he has presented NO experimental 
>evidence of any internal structure for the electron. 
>"
>If a galaxy is the same as an atom,
>then such is a given.

Oh good grief. That isn't science. That is religion.  In science, every hypothesis is tested
against existing evidence to see if it matches reality, and then used to make a prediction
of something not yet seen.

>Then, one looks for evidence that
>galaxies precess,

Why?

> and there is plenty.
>The most promising is that galactic
>rotation curves are made by
>averaging data from opposite sides
>of the disc, because they have to-
>because they are assymetric.

No, light curves show rotation, but no evidence of precession.
No astronomer is going to be stupid enough to look for precession
without a real good reason.

>It should be trivial to not only prove
>that this is because the disc is
>precessing, but HOW FAST those
>discs are precessing.
>Wow.

And light curves show the "precession" as 1:0 as you put it.

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

#600574

MM said
"
No, light curves show rotation, but no evidence of precession. 
No astronomer is going to be stupid enough to look for precession 
without a real good reason. 
"

The assymetry?
How is it explained, otherwise, Michael?
Please tell.

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

#600596

assymetry of galaxies, or of atoms,
have various causatories, so to say

> The assymetry?
> How is it explained, otherwise, Michael?
> Please tell.

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

#600713

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>MM said
>"
>No, light curves show rotation, but no evidence of precession. 
>No astronomer is going to be stupid enough to look for precession 
>without a real good reason. 
>"

>The assymetry?
>How is it explained, otherwise, Michael?
>Please tell.

Too vague.  Assymetry in speeds is likely simply caused by assymetry
in mass distribution.  Perhaps even caused by dark matter. (Go find a
six-year-old to explain "invisible heavy stuff" to you)

Now you know how when you watch a Hollywood sci-fi movie or any movie
involving computers, you have to do a big suspension of disbelief to
keep a scene that violates laws of physics or how something works or
something from ruining the movie?  Well, let's invoke that suspension
of disbelief for violating the laws of physics, and look at the silly
idea of precessing galaxies.  What would we see for a spiral galaxy
seen face-on, such as the Whirlpool Galaxy.  We'd ignore the violation
of laws of physics and ignore questions like where would the huge
torque come from, why wouldn't it just break apart etc.  What would we
see?  Just an "assymetry"?  No, we'd see one side of it with a
blueshift relative to the center as it approached us, and the opposite
side with a redshift relative to the center.  We never, ever, see this
so it looks like galaxies are never seen precessing, and the laws of
physics are safe.

BTW, did you make an appointment with a shrink yet regarding to your
OCD regarding precessing spinny things? This is not intended as an
insult.

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

#600728

see Alfvenic waves in plasma ... plasma-oids?

> Assymetry in speeds is likely simply caused by assymetry
> in mass distribution.  Perhaps even caused by dark matter. (Go find a
> six-year-old to explain "invisible heavy stuff" to you)
> 
> Now you know how when you watch a Hollywood sci-fi movie or any movie
> involving computers, you have to do a big suspension of disbelief to
> keep a scene that violates laws of physics or how something works or
> something from ruining the movie?  Well, let's invoke that suspension
> of disbelief for violating the laws of physics, and look at the silly
> idea of precessing galaxies.  What would we see for a spiral galaxy
> seen face-on, such as the Whirlpool Galaxy.  We'd ignore the violation
> of laws of physics and ignore questions like where would the huge
> torque come from, why wouldn't it just break apart etc.  What would we
> see?  Just an "assymetry"?  No, we'd see one side of it with a
> blueshift relative to the center as it approached us, and the opposite
> side with a redshift relative to the center.  We never, ever, see this
> so it looks like galaxies are never seen precessing, and the laws of
> physics are safe.
> 
> BTW, did you make an appointment with a shrink yet regarding to your
> OCD regarding precessing spinny things? This is not intended as an
> insult.

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

#600715

On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 3:43:49 PM UTC-4, john wrote:
> Ed said
> "
> John's can claim it all he likes, but he has presented NO experimental 
> evidence of any internal structure for the electron. 
> "
> If a galaxy is the same as an atom,
> then such is a given. One has allowed that reality
> never goes to zero dimensions, and keeps being
> divide up at periodic intervals.
> 
> Then, one looks for evidence that
> galaxies precess, and there is plenty.
> The most promising is that galactic
> rotation curves are made by
> averaging data from opposite sides
> of the disc, because they have to-
> because they are assymetric.
> 
> It should be trivial to not only prove
> that this is because the disc is
> precessing, but HOW FAST those
> discs are precessing.
> Wow.

And this is evidence for electrons made of vortices
of "something" smaller?

Electrons are not galaxies.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web