Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #638126 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-06-28 20:25 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-07-09 12:20 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 114 — 12 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Galaxy and Black Holes Relate "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-06-28 20:25 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-06-28 22:19 -0700
Galaxy and Black Holes Relate HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-06-29 05:44 -0700
Galaxy and Black Holes Relate Graveyard Vandal <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-29 06:08 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2017-06-29 15:24 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-06-30 02:31 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-06-30 02:37 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-30 11:36 +0000
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-06-30 05:15 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-30 17:50 +0000
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-06-30 15:12 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-01 04:14 +0000
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-07-01 01:46 -0400
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-03 06:10 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-03 11:19 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 15:35 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-03 11:27 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-03 19:13 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-07-04 03:33 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-04 07:39 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-07-04 10:23 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-04 11:07 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-05 02:01 +0000
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-05 01:58 +0000
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-04 20:38 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-05 03:54 +0000
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-04 22:40 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 02:34 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-05 13:05 +0000
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 06:32 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 07:00 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 07:20 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-05 15:09 +0000
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 12:30 -0500
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 16:05 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 08:03 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-05 17:27 +0000
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 12:32 -0500
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 12:29 -0500
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 12:02 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 12:13 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 14:36 -0500
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 16:17 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 14:24 -0500
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 12:27 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 15:58 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 09:34 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-07-05 13:06 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 12:20 -0500
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 11:15 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-05 18:31 +0000
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 13:38 -0500
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 14:36 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-07-05 15:21 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 16:14 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-06 09:59 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-06 20:33 +0000
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-07 20:35 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-08 07:17 +0000
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-08 06:16 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-09 01:49 +0000
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-08 18:52 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-09 04:18 +0000
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-09 05:20 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-09 12:56 +0000
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-09 06:32 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-09 17:19 +0000
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-09 10:27 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-10 09:57 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-07-08 20:14 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-08 20:22 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-07-09 07:06 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-09 07:19 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-09 07:27 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-09 17:21 +0000
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-09 10:37 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-10 02:06 +0000
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-07-09 08:03 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-10 18:15 -0400
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-09 04:15 +0000
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-07-09 12:58 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-07-09 18:26 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-10 01:53 +0000
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-07-09 19:34 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-10 09:53 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-07-08 06:18 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-08 12:04 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-08 18:49 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-09 01:58 +0000
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-08 19:12 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-08 19:38 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-09 04:04 +0000
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-10 09:49 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-07 08:27 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-07-07 10:33 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-07-07 10:47 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-10 07:47 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-10 08:01 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-10 10:15 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-10 11:48 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 15:48 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 15:47 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 15:46 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-06-30 06:34 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-07-05 15:09 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-07-06 15:11 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-07-06 15:22 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-07-09 10:33 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-07-09 10:46 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-07-09 11:14 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-07-09 13:33 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-07-09 11:37 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-10 18:19 -0400
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-09 12:20 -0700
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-05 12:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e55b7b66-4275-48fe-9a95-d79fada6fc05@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #638950 |
Anyway, enough. Galaxies are redshifted wrt each other. Let me count the reasons. Say 'agree' or 'no': 1. Distance 2. Velocity 3. Energy/intrinsic
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-05 14:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ojjf3b$1cl3$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #638951 |
On 7/5/17 2:13 PM, john wrote: > Anyway, enough. > > Galaxies are redshifted wrt each other. > > Let me count the reasons. Say 'agree' or 'no': > > 1. Distance > 2. Velocity > 3. Energy/intrinsic > I don't know what the third one means to you. The redshift is due to relative velocity. The observation by Hubble is that, overall, velocity is proportional to distance. So you could say that redshift happens to be related to distance because of this observational fact, but it's not a separate cause of redshift. Now the fact that the velocity is proportional to distance turns out to have a stunning consequence. Let me walk through that with you. Suppose you have a thing that is 50 light-years away and you observe that it is receding from you at 5E-9 c. You can ask the question, how long ago was it right nearby, if it's been receding at that rate the whole time. That calculation is bonehead simple. time = distance/velocity time = 50 light years / 5 billionths light-speed time = 10 billion years. Huh, ok, make note of that number. Now you look and there is another object that is 150 light years away and it is receding at 15E-9 c. (Remember, the velocity is observed to be proportional to the distance.) So how long ago was it right nearby? time = distance/velocity time = 150 light years / 15 billionths light speed time = 10 billion years. Son of a gun, same time as before! Now you look and there is another object that is 200 million light years away. By Hubble's observations, it's also receding at 20 million billionths of light speed. time = distance/velocity time = 200 million light years / 20 million billionths light speed time = 10 billion years. SAME TIME AS BEFORE! So 10 billion years ago (in this example) everything would have been right nearby, all on top of each other. This little bit of logical thinking, which starts with Hubble's OBSERVATION of velocity and distance being proportional, and clocking backwards, is the Big Bang hypothesis. It comes directly from OBSERVATION. No escaping that conclusion, no matter how much it conflicts with some magical beliefs you have about eternity and things remaining always the same. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-05 16:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bbea4592-7ff5-4e6d-bb24-a7c9c8683d99@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #638951 |
On Wednesday, July 5, 2017 at 3:13:20 PM UTC-4, john wrote: > Anyway, enough. > > Galaxies are redshifted wrt each other. > > Let me count the reasons. Say 'agree' or 'no': > > 1. Distance > 2. Velocity > 3. Energy/intrinsic Ignoring nonsense post that is only trying to dodge the topic.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-05 14:24 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ojjedt$1bl2$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #638950 |
On 7/5/17 2:02 PM, john wrote: > Odd > "by that interaction rather than just bouncing off intact like atoms do." > So, I imagine that YOU imagine that little balls > that are atoms bounce off each other with > little or no change to their little ball shape. > Maybe they flatten a little, like a golf ball? > Is that how you see it, Odd? > Depends on the scale. If you have two oxygen atoms, they will actually stick together to make O2 and then their shape has definitely changed, and there is a bond between them. But let's say you have helium gas. Then those are treated very much like little BB's that collide elastically, with the time between collisions being a lot longer than the time in collision, and with little to no change in the individual helium atoms. This is called the kinetic theory of gases, and Boltzmann was one of the key people who figured it out. By the way, one of Einstein's most compelling papers in 1905 was about Brownian motion, which is due to the elastic collisions of atoms and molecules in a fluid off a small body. With this, he actually proved that molecules were real, in a time when that was very uncertain. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-05 12:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <584f6c89-0b78-4a49-8740-af0e4b321403@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #638954 |
Bod Timescale
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-05 15:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0f06c159-6d33-4c71-821d-fcac2ddfaceb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #638871 |
On Wednesday, July 5, 2017 at 1:40:58 AM UTC-4, john wrote: > MM > "Irrelevant. We're discussing colliding galaxies, not atom" > Maybe atoms and galaxies just bounce off each > other because that's what they do. Silly boy. We know Atoms do not collide in ordinary interactions because they are dominated by electromagnetic properties. We have observed this in the lab many times. We can actually calculate the interactions fairly precisely. We know galaxies do collide in ordinary interactions because they are dominated by gravity. We observe this in the cosmos in many cases. We can actually calculate the interactions fairly precisely. So we KNOW that galaxies DO NOT just bounce off each. ED
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-05 09:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a1c91e5d-9cbb-4d12-a262-6f2ebc1638b4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #638865 |
On Tuesday, July 4, 2017 at 8:38:51 PM UTC-7, john wrote: > MM > " > >YOU say they are "colliding" for some reason. > >Why? > > No, NASA says they are colliding. Since NASA has actual scientists who ..." > > Yes. > And do atoms collide? Neutrons collide.Neutrinos collideTreBert
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-05 13:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ojjgmb$6uv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #638908 |
In his <http://tinyurl.com/Blog-of-2-fecal-kikes-Mar2017> + in a.a & s.p. Glazier brags about his Radical & Fanatical Extremism of Jewish Supremacy in which Bert posts about HIS own sorry state, what he eats & how Glazier gets drunk & full of cocaine to report the local Temp by <http://tinyurl.com/Loudmouth-Glazier-8Feb2017> [1], who is the <http://tinyurl.com/The-Chosen-Graveyard-Vandal> that causes untold misery to his own ilk. "It's a pity"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-05 12:20 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ojj75a$vts$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #638865 |
On 7/4/17 10:38 PM, john wrote: > MM > " >> YOU say they are "colliding" for some reason. >> Why? > > No, NASA says they are colliding. Since NASA has actual scientists who ..." > > Yes. > And do atoms collide? > Of course they do. You'll notice there's no characteristic gamma radiation from matter-antimatter annihilation in those collisions EITHER. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-05 11:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b4856157-4303-4cf0-be55-a341495d1a6a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #638922 |
Odd "On 7/4/17 10:38 PM, john wrote: > MM > " >> YOU say they are "colliding" for some reason. >> Why? > > No, NASA says they are colliding. Since NASA has actual scientists who ..." > > Yes. > And do atoms collide? > Of course they do. You'll notice there's no characteristic gamma radiation from matter-antimatter annihilation in those collisions EITHER. -- " So, Odd, Your position is that atoms bounce off each other cause they're LITTLE, but galaxies go right through each other cause they're BIG. Gotcha. Good thinking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-05 18:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ojjb9b$jl7$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #638939 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >Odd >"On 7/4/17 10:38 PM, john wrote: >> And do atoms collide? >Of course they do. You'll notice there's no characteristic gamma >radiation from matter-antimatter annihilation in those collisions EITHER. >So, Odd, >Your position is that atoms bounce off each >other cause they're LITTLE, >but galaxies go right through each other >cause they're BIG. >Gotcha. Good thinking No, John. Times like this make me think you *deliberately* misinterpret the answers you have been given. Atoms bounce off of each other because they have electron clouds that repel each other when they get close to each other. Galaxies go through each other because they don't have electron clouds (or anything else) that repel each other. There is nothing to stop the individual stars, only gravity to deflect them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-05 13:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ojjbnd$17ij$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #638939 |
On 7/5/17 1:15 PM, john wrote: > Odd > "On 7/4/17 10:38 PM, john wrote: >> MM >> " >>> YOU say they are "colliding" for some reason. >>> Why? >> >> No, NASA says they are colliding. Since NASA has actual scientists who ..." >> >> Yes. >> And do atoms collide? >> > > Of course they do. You'll notice there's no characteristic gamma > radiation from matter-antimatter annihilation in those collisions EITHER. > > -- > " > So, Odd, > Your position is that atoms bounce off each > other cause they're LITTLE, > but galaxies go right through each other > cause they're BIG. > Gotcha. Good thinking No, John, that's not what I said at all. Let me repeat myself succinctly so maybe your pot-addled head will absorb it this time: 1. If atoms were like galaxies, you'd be in trouble because your thesis that galaxies have both matter and antimatter in them, and then atoms would ALSO have matter and antimatter in them, and then you'd see the characteristic gamma rays from BOTH atoms and galaxies, and you DON'T. 2. Atoms are not like galaxies because their behavior is dominated by a very strong electromagnetic interaction which is 43 orders of magnitude larger than gravity in that case. (The math is easy.) In galaxies, where their is very little net charge floating around, gravity dominates and the little bit of magnetic field is 20 orders of magnitude SMALLER than the gravitational influence. (Again the math is easy.) This is why atoms bounce off each other and galaxies do not -- they are DIFFERENT and there's a REASON they're different. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-05 14:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <790f6f24-1bee-42bf-be43-3f410ca9dded@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #638945 |
On Wednesday, July 5, 2017 at 11:38:43 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/5/17 1:15 PM, john wrote: > > Odd > > "On 7/4/17 10:38 PM, john wrote: > >> MM > >> " > >>> YOU say they are "colliding" for some reason. > >>> Why? > >> > >> No, NASA says they are colliding. Since NASA has actual scientists who ..." > >> > >> Yes. > >> And do atoms collide? > >> > > > > Of course they do. You'll notice there's no characteristic gamma > > radiation from matter-antimatter annihilation in those collisions EITHER. > > > > > -- > > " > > > So, Odd, > > Your position is that atoms bounce off each > > other cause they're LITTLE, > > but galaxies go right through each other > > cause they're BIG. > > Gotcha. Good thinking > > No, John, that's not what I said at all. Let me repeat myself succinctly > so maybe your pot-addled head will absorb it this time: > > 1. If atoms were like galaxies, you'd be in trouble because your thesis > that galaxies have both matter and antimatter in them, and then atoms > would ALSO have matter and antimatter in them, and then you'd see the > characteristic gamma rays from BOTH atoms and galaxies, and you DON'T. > > 2. Atoms are not like galaxies because their behavior is dominated by a > very strong electromagnetic interaction which is 43 orders of magnitude > larger than gravity in that case. (The math is easy.) In galaxies, where > their is very little net charge floating around, gravity dominates and > the little bit of magnetic field is 20 orders of magnitude SMALLER than > the gravitational influence. (Again the math is easy.) This is why atoms > bounce off each other and galaxies do not -- they are DIFFERENT and > there's a REASON they're different. > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables When two galaxies come together they share their BHs.They go from flat to circular.They become bigger and brighter,and have a much better chance for humankind type of life.Milky way is flat but we were lucky in more ways then one.TreBert
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-05 15:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ojjokk$36o$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #638973 |
<http://tinyurl.com/Loudmouth-Glazier-8Feb2017> [1] who shows his Radical Extremism of Jewish Supremacy in the <http://tinyurl.com/Blog-of-2-fecal-kikes-Mar2017> & waits for <http://tinyurl.com/Swine-Glazier-s-Undertaker> who has a gruesome end in store for Glazier, which is the same "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> wrote: > Is there any math going with God. "Go figure" that Glazier is <http://tinyurl.com/The-Chosen-Graveyard-Vandal>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-05 16:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0d0823a7-55f8-42d1-8b6b-3f383f4199a8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #638939 |
On Wednesday, July 5, 2017 at 2:15:48 PM UTC-4, john wrote: > Odd [] > > So, Odd, > Your position is that atoms bounce off each > other cause they're LITTLE, > but galaxies go right through each other > cause they're BIG. > Gotcha. Good thinking NO. You have it perfectly backwards. I don't think you could be any farther from the right understanding. Because they are small, they interact by different properties. In my other posts I tried to simplify it for you by only mentioning E&M. The interaction of atoms is also described by Quantum Mechanics. Yeah, I know that QM blows your mind, but sorry son, Mother Nature is a bitch. Reality is her game by her rules. Not mine, not yours. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-06 09:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b333478b-1abb-46f4-86ac-1d60ea4be1c9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #638996 |
ed "Because they are small, they interact by different properties. In my other posts I tried to simplify it for you by only " Light as compared to atoms is different than light as compared to galaxies. That's your argument? If they are fractals, then galaxies also have a form of light; possibly Quasars. We're talking about atoms which cycle at 10-16 seconds, compared to galaxies, which cycle at 200 million years. Coincidentally, atoms are 10^31 times smaller, and cycle 10^31 times faster! Not a coincidence. But, yes, OUR emr would have a different relationship with each. So, what?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-06 20:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ojm6rh$fgm$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #639122 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >Light as compared to atoms is different than >light as compared to galaxies. >That's your argument? There you go again, deliberately misunderstanding his answer. >If they are fractals, then They aren't; so not applicable. >Coincidentally, atoms are 10^31 times smaller, >and cycle 10^31 times faster! >Not a coincidence. No, not a coincidence, just your drug-addled mind looking for and finding patterns where none exist.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-07 20:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <317c8bff-ca73-4d01-9163-12bd134eb2cd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #639156 |
MM " There you go again, deliberately misunderstanding his answer. " No I didn't. His answer was that electromagnetic effects on galaxies and atoms is different, so they couldn't be fractals of each other. Galaxies and atoms are obviously at different size scales. Therefore his answer is dumb.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-08 07:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ojq0tl$7f5$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #639397 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >MM >" >There you go again, deliberately misunderstanding his answer. " >No I didn't. >His answer was that electromagnetic effects >on galaxies and atoms is different, so they >couldn't be fractals of each other. >Galaxies and atoms are obviously at different >size scales. Therefore his answer is dumb. There you go again, deliberately misunderstanding his answer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-08 06:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0ac01c20-5d76-4622-89e1-c10b7b40b1de@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #639408 |
MM He was talking about emr. emr is a product of atoms. Electromagnetic fields around atoms would be comparable to Cosmic Ray patterns around galaxies.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web